Strike out = to any other out?

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

Bringing back the strikeout now for the moment. Effectively, infield popouts and strikeouts are equal. Neither has a chance of advancing runners and neither results in double plays. Based on above, a Strikeout is worse than a deep flyout to right.

A fly ball does result in two outs when guys tag up and get tossed out. Its infrequent, but it does happen.

A fly ball leading off an inning is no better than a stikeout, and neither is one for the 3rd out. Most players get out 65%+ of the time, so 65%+ of the time the second batter in the inning would not even have a chance of advancing a runner with a fly ball.

You are talking about only a small portion of possible outs, and the probability that a runner is on, has some speed, and a fly ball is deep enough to move him up doesn't happen a significant amount of the time, even if all the outs where long fly balls. Given that they are not all long fly-balls, its even less significant.

GL

[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....

Clearly to be more precise you would have to do a weighted average to arrive at an exact number/frequency but for this discussion just showing the "possibilities" is enough to make the point.

In the eight 2-out situations, the deep flyout to right and popout would be equal. However that still leaves 14 (toss out the 2 bases empty) other situations where a team could stand to benefit (advance runners) from the flyout more than the popout.

14 of a possible 24 situations (58%) I'd say is significant.

Furthermore, you could assume a "very conservative" position on taking the extra base to address the "tag up and get tossed out" exception (never try to take second, never try with a very slow runner etc.) - that would lower the 58% number but still the difference would remain. A flyout to right remains a relatively better out than an infield popout. All outs are not equal.

Originally Posted by gonelong

A fly ball does result in two outs when guys tag up and get tossed out. Its infrequent, but it does happen.

A fly ball leading off an inning is no better than a stikeout, and neither is one for the 3rd out. Most players get out 65%+ of the time, so 65%+ of the time the second batter in the inning would not even have a chance of advancing a runner with a fly ball.

You are talking about only a small portion of possible outs, and the probability that a runner is on, has some speed, and a fly ball is deep enough to move him up doesn't happen a significant amount of the time, even if all the outs where long fly balls. Given that they are not all long fly-balls, its even less significant.

GL

[baseballPAP]

Reading this, I keep going back to something Bill James said regarding evolution of all things, but also people who refuse to "believe" in sabremetrics........

"Anyway, the "dispute" isn't a disagreement about the evidence, but a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't. It's like asking a naturalist why he doesn't do a complete, once-and-for-all study on the evidence of evolution and creationism. The evidence is already conclusive; it's just that there are people who don't intend to accept it unless the hand of God appears in the sky one afternoon and writes "ALL RIGHT! I CONFESS! I DID IT BY EVOLUTION! IT TOOK ME YEARS! I'SE JUST KIDDING ABOUT THE SEVEN DAYS! AND BY THE WAY, MILWAUKEE COUNTY STADIUM IS A PITCHER'S PARK ... BE BACK NEXT MILLENNIUM. LOVE, GOD."

No offense meant to all the anti-evolutionists here(that would be another thread). BF, what does this quote say to you?

[DoogMinAmo]

Originally Posted by westofyou

This has been an issue since the 60's.

Am I the only one who remembers the protests?

:MandJ: :MandJ:

Woy, buddy, entertaining as you are with these pics, if you are using Photoshop, try : Edit: Transform: Perspective. If you are already aware of this, and were making an artistic decision, I apologize in advance for the tip.

[DoogMinAmo]

Originally Posted by TRF

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?

Sorry TRF, but wouldn't his avg. be .333? I digress ...

[DoogMinAmo]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Simply put, the Outs and Bases erased by Casey's GIDP's were more valuable to the Reds than the random bases gained by Out-event balls hit into play.

But were they clutch outs? :mhcky21:

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by baseballPAP

BF, what does this quote say to you?

I'll tell you what that quote says to me - specifically the "a disagreement between people who are looking at the evidence and people who aren't." That says he believes his interpretation of the facts/evidence is correct. And when offered another way of looking at those SAME facts/evidence, rather than giving an alternate view consideration, he is dismissing that view as not being fact-based.

So let me ask you PAP and I stand with an open mind for your response. Where is the flaw in this conceptual logic/argument (as opposed to a stat based RC-type argument) I have layed out that the deep flyout to right is a relatively better out than the popout or strikeout ? How is this argument not based on facts?

[DoogMinAmo]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

So let me ask you PAP and I stand with an open mind for your response. Where is the flaw in this conceptual logic/argument (as opposed to a stat based RC-type argument) I have layed out that the deep flyout to right is a relatively better out than the popout or strikeout ? How is this argument not based on facts?

To play devil's advocate, first of all, all fly outs are not deep to right...
Usually it is a left handed hitter who hits deep to right, and there are more right handers in the majors than left handers. If you are going to use the situations you mentioned, 24 possibilites of men on base etc.,then you should also factor in the different results of where the ball is hit. With the K, the ball goes no where, with a hit, the ball can go anywhere. Anywhere is not always good. If you say that, and I am being very generous, that half the hit balls are "productive," then that 58-42 advantage has fallen to 29-42. Needless to say, no longer an advantage.

On the flip side, I used to be a big anti-K guy, just cause it hurts so much when it happens, especially in key situations in a game. And at least with contact, you feel there is a chance that the runner may advance or score. So high Ks are bad in that sense, but what our peers are pimping is not just high Ks, but a high walk rate to correspond, which Adam has, and can therefore help just as much in those late situations.

It may or may not be "clutch," in those late game situations, but it does not hurt, and may help.

[BadFundamentals]

Originally Posted by DoogMinAmo

To play devil's advocate, first of all, all fly outs are not deep to right...

But when you set out to prove or disprove something you create "test conditions" which aren't necessarily intended to mirror the real world. They are intended to isolate/reduce the variables (in this case the type of outs). Yes, it is unlikely to have a game where all 27 outs would be deep flyouts to right. But by using the hypothetical, you can reduce variables to just those two types of outs and prove that they are not equal.

As a slight digression, this is my issue with some of the stat-based SABRE conclusions I have seen. In some cases, I've seen conclusions which suggest correlations exist or don't exist but there are many statistical variables at work in those studies - no attempt to adhere to the "Scientific Method" of isolating variables with "all other things held equal".

[baseballPAP]

You want to talk statistical variables? I don't have the numbers(I bet RavenLord or Steele do though), but where are you figures in your math that represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions? For instance, bases empty with any number of outs would constitute the largest %, and a runner on 1st is likely next. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is the only situation where your deep fly to right is better than any other out. OK, I'll concede the remote possibility of a runner advancing 2nd to 3rd on the first out, then scoring on the second. Or, even more unlikely, scoring from 2nd on a single deep fly out.

As for the quote, I said it reminds me of you. Meaning, someone who would rather, just for the sake of taking up the opposite opinion, ignore all facts presented and keep to their single point, regardless of any and all contrary evidence.

I had a college roommate like that....he flunked out because he refused to admit that evolution was even a possibility, and thus failed his freshman biology class at OSU.... Absolutely brilliant stand on his part.

[Ravenlord]

i could get the numbers, but it would require me to either go through every single game log for the last few years, or check every single player in MLB (pitchers too) situational hitting stats for the last few years too. i'm not willing to the work for that though. Steel might have the numbers already, or may know of a site that already has them up or something. one things for sure, i haven't found them on ESPN.com or at BP.

[BadFundamentals]

I acknowledged your point from the outset (scroll up) - that to be more precise you'd have to have weighted averages to "represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions". But not necessary to have weighted averages to make/prove the point.

As for your second comment, I'd suggest you look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by baseballPAP

You want to talk statistical variables? I don't have the numbers(I bet RavenLord or Steele do though), but where are you figures in your math that represent the % of time within each of your 24 conditions? For instance, bases empty with any number of outs would constitute the largest %, and a runner on 1st is likely next. Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is the only situation where your deep fly to right is better than any other out. OK, I'll concede the remote possibility of a runner advancing 2nd to 3rd on the first out, then scoring on the second. Or, even more unlikely, scoring from 2nd on a single deep fly out.

As for the quote, I said it reminds me of you. Meaning, someone who would rather, just for the sake of taking up the opposite opinion, ignore all facts presented and keep to their single point, regardless of any and all contrary evidence.

I had a college roommate like that....he flunked out because he refused to admit that evolution was even a possibility, and thus failed his freshman biology class at OSU.... Absolutely brilliant stand on his part.

[baseballPAP]

OK..hours of searching aside, I think we can agree that runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs is a minor player in the total whole of the 24 situations.....maybe 3% ?

[Ravenlord]

just gleaning over my box scores from last year, probably 3-8%

[baseballPAP]

Originally Posted by BadFundamentals

As for your second comment, I'd suggest you look in the mirror.

Hmmmm, now we're going to insult each other, because your argument hit a wall? Pass.

All I mean is that some people would rather ignore all evidence and stick to their own platform, no matter how termite infested it becomes.

I am of the type that says "Hmmm, that platform looks like its about to fall in, and look, ALL those other people are over there on the nice shiny new one. I think I'll go with them".