Posted by tecwrg on 5/24/2014 8:03:00 AM (view original):
BL was presenting his numbers (73%, 20.6%, 5.4% and 12%) in terms of all plate appearances.  So my 2% was within that context.

You need to use base/out states not just outcomes. 20.6% of the time there is a runner on first and less than two out. Included in that is about 5% of the time where there is also a runner on third. So a fly ball out is productive but a ground ball out isn't.

6.4% of the time, a ground ball out to the right side or a fly ball out is productive. You can combine that with the 5 and change in the group above and get 12%.

20-15ish% for out in play is a possible disaster
6-12ish% for out in play is less negative than strikeout/pop out
73% of the time it makes no difference at all

Wrong.

"Possible disaster" is not the same as "assured disaster".

20.6% of the time, a plate appearance is a potential GIDP.  But only 2% of the time actually results in a GIDP.  The rest of the outcomes are either neutral or "less negative" than a strikeout.

Using your logic, 100% of the time you get in your car to drive to work is a "possible disaster".  You're still here and filling the forums with bad arguments and invalid assertions, so I'm assuming that these "possible disaster" scenarios in your car have never actually played out.

"Oh no.  I'll probably get in a wreck and die.   May as well stay home."

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/24/2014 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Based on......?

Common sense? Take out the vast majority of extra base hits with 2 strikes if you need to guarantee contact.

Are we now going to create a stat to measure "common sense"?    I guess, if we're trying to measure "lucky", we may as well.

An anecdotal story. 

I'm managing my 15 year old's Babe Ruth team this spring.  We had a game last week in which a player on the opposing team had a 12 pitch AB.  At one point, he fouled off 7 straight pitches.  It was quite obvious that he had shortened his swing to keep the PA alive.  He worked the count full, then eventually lined a double into the gap.

This happens in MLB as well.

Changing your approach with two strikes, and XBH are not necessarily mutually exclusive events.  Keeping a PA alive to get a pitch you can do something with is smart baseball if you have the skills to do it.  Most MLB players have those skills.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Are we now going to create a stat to measure "common sense"?    I guess, if we're trying to measure "lucky", we may as well.

If you're going to argue that stats won't fall substantially with 2 strikes when your sole desire is simply to guarantee not striking out, I'm not sure what else to say.

That's sort of the thing.   There's a huge difference between a knee-high pitch on the other fifth of the plate and one waist-high right down the middle.   Every time the ball contacts bat doesn't mean "in play".     As BABIP obviously proves. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 9:29:00 AM (view original):
An anecdotal story. 

I'm managing my 15 year old's Babe Ruth team this spring.  We had a game last week in which a player on the opposing team had a 12 pitch AB.  At one point, he fouled off 7 straight pitches.  It was quite obvious that he had shortened his swing to keep the PA alive.  He worked the count full, then eventually lined a double into the gap.

This happens in MLB as well.

Changing your approach with two strikes, and XBH are not necessarily mutually exclusive events.  Keeping a PA alive to get a pitch you can do something with is smart baseball if you have the skills to do it.  Most MLB players have those skills.

I don't disagree.  Mike is talking about a hypothetical scenario where a player guarantees 0 strikeouts.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Are we now going to create a stat to measure "common sense"?    I guess, if we're trying to measure "lucky", we may as well.

If you're going to argue that stats won't fall substantially with 2 strikes when your sole desire is simply to guarantee not striking out, I'm not sure what else to say.

If you're going to argue that stats must fall substantially with 2 strikes because the batter wants to guarantee contact, I'm not sure what else you should say.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Are we now going to create a stat to measure "common sense"?    I guess, if we're trying to measure "lucky", we may as well.

If you're going to argue that stats won't fall substantially with 2 strikes when your sole desire is simply to guarantee not striking out, I'm not sure what else to say.

If you're going to argue that stats must fall substantially with 2 strikes because the batter wants to guarantee contact, I'm not sure what else you should say.

Yea, that's pretty obvious.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/25/2014 6:57:00 AM (view original):
Wrong.

"Possible disaster" is not the same as "assured disaster".

20.6% of the time, a plate appearance is a potential GIDP.  But only 2% of the time actually results in a GIDP.  The rest of the outcomes are either neutral or "less negative" than a strikeout.

Using your logic, 100% of the time you get in your car to drive to work is a "possible disaster".  You're still here and filling the forums with bad arguments and invalid assertions, so I'm assuming that these "possible disaster" scenarios in your car have never actually played out.

I guess to answer the question, we have to know what the question is.

You say: Players strikeout too much.
I say: It really doesn't matter. As long as the player is otherwise productive (OBP or SLG), an out is an out.
You say: Some outs can be productive.
I say: Yep. And some can be disasters.

At this point, to me anyway, the question becomes: Should players alter their approach to reduce strikeouts?

Ignoring a lot of very important stuff, like the possible reduction in power and BABIP from a contact oriented approach, I think it's important to look at the possibilities of more/less outs in play.

If we are going to look at what happens when more outs are made in play, we need to evaluate base/out states prior to the play. Yes, GIDP only happened on 2% of the plate appearances last season but if we're talking about a change in approach that leads to more outs in play, we need to look at total opportunities for GIDP and compare that with total opportunities for productive outs to see which approach is most beneficial.

You seem to be arguing (or at least your argument seems to assume) that in any state where there is an opportunity for a GIDP, that a strikeout is always "less negative" than an out on a ball in play..

I disagree.

Two possible scenarios immediately come to mind.

Runners on first and second, nobody out.  (a) Batters hits into a force at second, resulting in first and third, one out; (b) batter grounds to first, resulting in second and third, one out.  Both of those are better states than first and second, one out (with a K).  Your argument disregards those.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 12:01:00 PM (view original):
You seem to be arguing (or at least your argument seems to assume) that in any state where there is an opportunity for a GIDP, that a strikeout is always "less negative" than an out on a ball in play..

I disagree.

Two possible scenarios immediately come to mind.

Runners on first and second, nobody out.  (a) Batters hits into a force at second, resulting in first and third, one out; (b) batter grounds to first, resulting in second and third, one out.  Both of those are better states than first and second, one out (with a K).  Your argument disregards those.

You seem to be arguing (or at least your argument seems to assume) that in any state where there is an opportunity for a GIDP, that a strikeout is always "less negative" than an out on a ball in play.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that more outs in play will naturally lead to more GIDP. 

And (many) more productive outs.