Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 2:35:00 PM (view original):
There probably is.  I don't have time or desire to look for it.  I'll just go with logic, common sense, critical thinking skills, conventional baseball wisdom, etc.

Is there any evidence that teams score more runs when they strikeout more?  Is there such a thing as a productive strikeout?

There probably is? I think you have plenty of time to look it up. It's easy. Go to any team stat list for a random year. ESPN's page is pretty easy to use. Sort by team runs scored. Then sort by Ks. Is there a correlation? I'm betting there isn't.

I'm also betting that there is a strong correlation between runs scored and OBP & SLG.

If you're going to be one of the best hitters in baseball, you need to be a slugger, and to do that, you need to swing hard.  When you swing hard, you're more likely to miss the ball entirely than if you didn't swing as hard and your sole purpose at the plate was to make contact.  If you look at the best hitters in the game in recent memory, you'll see some pretty high strikeout totals.  If you look at the 600 PA and < 75 K guys, you see a lot of slap hitters.  So if you're a high strikeout batter, are you better off making more contact, but risk looking more like one of those slap hitters? Probably not.

That said, it makes sense to change your approach a little but when you're in certain situations, because putting the ball in play is very valuable in some circumstances.

Sure, there are obviously situations where certain types of contact are preferred and, to the extent that they can remain effective offensively, players should adjust their approach accordingly.

And the evidence, at least for 2014, is that players do change their approach in those situations. I linked the chart that shows K rate going from 20% to 15% when there's a runner on third and one out.

Tec's original complaint was that players, in general, strike out too much. Which is dumb. Overall, even considering the slim benefit of some productive outs, how players make outs really doesn't matter.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Maybe because they lead the league, or are close to it, in homers?

Seriously, Adam Dunn adjusting is kind of dumb regardless of the situation.    But Austin Jackson shouldn't strike out because he's swinging from his heels.   Some players would be better off putting the ball in play more often while others should just try to hit homers.

This argument is akin to power hitters bunting against the shift.   A) They shouldn't even practice bunting so they should suck at it B) you win when you make David Ortiz even try to bunt.
 

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 2:35:00 PM (view original):
There probably is.  I don't have time or desire to look for it.  I'll just go with logic, common sense, critical thinking skills, conventional baseball wisdom, etc.

Is there any evidence that teams score more runs when they strikeout more?  Is there such a thing as a productive strikeout?

There probably is? I think you have plenty of time to look it up. It's easy. Go to any team stat list for a random year. ESPN's page is pretty easy to use. Sort by team runs scored. Then sort by Ks. Is there a correlation? I'm betting there isn't.

I'm also betting that there is a strong correlation between runs scored and OBP & SLG.

If you're going to be one of the best hitters in baseball, you need to be a slugger, and to do that, you need to swing hard.  When you swing hard, you're more likely to miss the ball entirely than if you didn't swing as hard and your sole purpose at the plate was to make contact.  If you look at the best hitters in the game in recent memory, you'll see some pretty high strikeout totals.  If you look at the 600 PA and < 75 K guys, you see a lot of slap hitters.  So if you're a high strikeout batter, are you better off making more contact, but risk looking more like one of those slap hitters? Probably not.

That said, it makes sense to change your approach a little but when you're in certain situations, because putting the ball in play is very valuable in some circumstances.

Sure, there are obviously situations where certain types of contact are preferred and, to the extent that they can remain effective offensively, players should adjust their approach accordingly.

And the evidence, at least for 2014, is that players do change their approach in those situations. I linked the chart that shows K rate going from 20% to 15% when there's a runner on third and one out.

Tec's original complaint was that players, in general, strike out too much. Which is dumb. Overall, even considering the slim benefit of some productive outs, how players make outs really doesn't matter.

"Overall, even considering the slim benefit of some productive outs, how players make outs really doesn't matter."

By phrasing this "overall..." you're correct.  If tec argues otherwise, it's kinda dumb.  Look at the teams that score the most runs in history, and you'll probably find teams who were close to leading the league in strikeouts too.

My "argument" was obvioulsy extreme(turn 100 strikeouts into 100 balls in play and get 20 more hits by virtue of BABIP).   I'm sorry if you can't understand the use of extreme arguments to prove a point.

Nonetheless, if you're Austin Jackson, you'd be better off putting 80 more balls in play, even if it means "taking something off" your swing when the count isn't in your favor because you're not a guy who hits for power.  Players have skill sets and they damn sure should cater to them.    Adam Dunn "taking something off" his swing probably does produce that disaster BL thinks happens all the time.   He's slow and his value comes from hitting the ball a long way.  That's not AJackson's game.

As for bunting against the shift, do you want David Ortiz spending time working on his bunting skills?    Or just swinging?  Time is finite. 

 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 5:10:00 PM (view original):

My "argument" was obvioulsy extreme(turn 100 strikeouts into 100 balls in play and get 20 more hits by virtue of BABIP).   I'm sorry if you can't understand the use of extreme arguments to prove a point.

Nonetheless, if you're Austin Jackson, you'd be better off putting 80 more balls in play, even if it means "taking something off" your swing when the count isn't in your favor because you're not a guy who hits for power.  Players have skill sets and they damn sure should cater to them.    Adam Dunn "taking something off" his swing probably does produce that disaster BL thinks happens all the time.   He's slow and his value comes from hitting the ball a long way.  That's not AJackson's game.

As for bunting against the shift, do you want David Ortiz spending time working on his bunting skills?    Or just swinging?  Time is finite. 

 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2014 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 2:35:00 PM (view original):
There probably is.  I don't have time or desire to look for it.  I'll just go with logic, common sense, critical thinking skills, conventional baseball wisdom, etc.

Is there any evidence that teams score more runs when they strikeout more?  Is there such a thing as a productive strikeout?

There probably is? I think you have plenty of time to look it up. It's easy. Go to any team stat list for a random year. ESPN's page is pretty easy to use. Sort by team runs scored. Then sort by Ks. Is there a correlation? I'm betting there isn't.

I'm also betting that there is a strong correlation between runs scored and OBP & SLG.

If you're going to be one of the best hitters in baseball, you need to be a slugger, and to do that, you need to swing hard.  When you swing hard, you're more likely to miss the ball entirely than if you didn't swing as hard and your sole purpose at the plate was to make contact.  If you look at the best hitters in the game in recent memory, you'll see some pretty high strikeout totals.  If you look at the 600 PA and < 75 K guys, you see a lot of slap hitters.  So if you're a high strikeout batter, are you better off making more contact, but risk looking more like one of those slap hitters? Probably not.

That said, it makes sense to change your approach a little but when you're in certain situations, because putting the ball in play is very valuable in some circumstances.

Sure, there are obviously situations where certain types of contact are preferred and, to the extent that they can remain effective offensively, players should adjust their approach accordingly.

And the evidence, at least for 2014, is that players do change their approach in those situations. I linked the chart that shows K rate going from 20% to 15% when there's a runner on third and one out.

Tec's original complaint was that players, in general, strike out too much. Which is dumb. Overall, even considering the slim benefit of some productive outs, how players make outs really doesn't matter.

"Overall, even considering the slim benefit of some productive outs, how players make outs really doesn't matter."

By phrasing this "overall..." you're correct.  If tec argues otherwise, it's kinda dumb.  Look at the teams that score the most runs in history, and you'll probably find teams who were close to leading the league in strikeouts too.

I phrased it that way because a) it's correct and b) it lines up with tec's original complaint.

When he says "players strikeout too much," I read that as (all players/in general/overall/etc.) strike out too much.