I'm not avoiding the question. We've been over this before.

If a batter comes up and does not get a hit or walk, he makes an out (ignoring ROE/HBP/ETC). That value of that out depends on the situation but breaks down three ways:

The first group can be called plain negative. This includes all strikeouts, all first outs, and all outs in play that can't or don't advance a runner (pop ups, line outs, shallow flies, come backers, and certain ground balls). This is the majority of outs by a large margin.

The second group can be called negative with a small benefit. This includes outs that move or score a runner. The small benefit varies by situation but never outweighs the overall negative and is only slightly better than the first group. You were always in a better position prior to the out.

The third group can be called "tec's understanding of baseball." This group is a disaster. Just joking, let's call it negative plus an inning crushing negative. And it's a disaster. This group is obviously double plays. These are far and away the worst and the difference between these and the first group is large. Much larger than the difference between groups 1 and 2.

I believe, and I think the data backs this up, that players can't control how and when they make their outs. Guys who strike out a lot will do so at times when you would prefer contact. Guys who make a lot of outs in play will do so at times when a ground ball destroys your inning. In the end, things tend to balance out and how the outs were made really doesn't matter. Which is why yearly team run scoring and team strikeouts don't correlate.

You're still avoiding the question.  I'll try again.

Let's say you're out at a sports bar with a couple of your friends.  OK, I know you don't have any friends, but bear with me for the sake of example.

There are two different games on the TV, and you're watching both of them.  Both games are in the bottom of the 9th, games are tied at 1-1, home team is batting with a runner on first and nobody out.

In the game on the TV to the left, the batter hits a grounder towards the hole between the first baseman and second baseman.  The second baseman makes a great play and throws the batter out at first.  Runner now at second base with one out.

In the game on the TV to the right, the batter takes three big swings and strikes out.  Runner still at first, now with one out.  And your doomsday scenario of a potential "ground ball disaster" is still in play.

Which home team (left TV or right TV) is in a better position to win the game?

I'm pretty sure I answered your question:

What's better: productive outs that advance runners, or non productive outs, such as strikeouts, that do not?


See:

The first group can be called plain negative. This includes all strikeouts, all first outs, and all outs in play that can't or don't advance a runner (pop ups, line outs, shallow flies, come backers, and certain ground balls). This is the majority of outs by a large margin.

The second group can be called negative with a small benefit. This includes outs that move or score a runner. The small benefit varies by situation but never outweighs the overall negative and is only slightly better than the first group. You were always in a better position prior to the out.

The third group can be called "tec's understanding of baseball." This group is a disaster. Just joking, let's call it negative plus an inning crushing negative. And it's a disaster. This group is obviously double plays. These are far and away the worst and the difference between these and the first group is large. Much larger than the difference between groups 1 and 2.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:03:00 PM (view original):
You're still avoiding the question.  I'll try again.

Let's say you're out at a sports bar with a couple of your friends.  OK, I know you don't have any friends, but bear with me for the sake of example.

There are two different games on the TV, and you're watching both of them.  Both games are in the bottom of the 9th, games are tied at 1-1, home team is batting with a runner on first and nobody out.

In the game on the TV to the left, the batter hits a grounder towards the hole between the first baseman and second baseman.  The second baseman makes a great play and throws the batter out at first.  Runner now at second base with one out.

In the game on the TV to the right, the batter takes three big swings and strikes out.  Runner still at first, now with one out.  And your doomsday scenario of a potential "ground ball disaster" is still in play.

Which home team (left TV or right TV) is in a better position to win the game?

I'll answer this specific scenario if you answer this first.

Same starting scenario.

TV on left, ground ball goes directly to the second baseman, he turns two. Two out, no one on.

TV on right, guy strikes out. One out, runner on first.

Which team is in a better position to win the game?

I think the problem with arguing that a strikeout is the same as every other out, and why a lot of people have a problem with it, is that it may come across as if there's no difference between these 2 TVs:

1) Strikeout
2) Ball in play

Strikeouts are bad.  It gives you next to no chance of getting on base.  Hit the ball.

Now, that said, it shouldn't be the thing you're emphasizing most of the time.  Hit the ball HARD.  But if you can't hit the ball as hard as you want to, it's better to hit the ball than to strike out.

TV on right. 

Though I'm not upset with the GIDP player, because he made contact and put the ball in play.  Roughly 33% of the time, good things will happen when you do that.  Roughly 0% of the time will something good happen offensively with a strikeout.  Smart baseball.

Your turn.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem with arguing that a strikeout is the same as every other out, and why a lot of people have a problem with it, is that it may come across as if there's no difference between these 2 TVs:

1) Strikeout
2) Ball in play

Strikeouts are bad.  It gives you next to no chance of getting on base.  Hit the ball.

Out in play =/= ball in play.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
TV on right. 

Though I'm not upset with the GIDP player, because he made contact and put the ball in play.  Roughly 33% of the time, good things will happen when you do that.  Roughly 0% of the time will something good happen offensively with a strikeout.  Smart baseball.

Your turn.

TV on left.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem with arguing that a strikeout is the same as every other out, and why a lot of people have a problem with it, is that it may come across as if there's no difference between these 2 TVs:

1) Strikeout
2) Ball in play

Strikeouts are bad.  It gives you next to no chance of getting on base.  Hit the ball.

Out in play =/= ball in play.

That's correct.  I'm just telling you how the argument can come across when you say that.  Putting the ball in play is a good thing, it's much better than not putting the ball in play.  As tec said, it's harder to get mad at the guy who hit the ball hard right at someone than the guy who strikes out.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
TV on right. 

Though I'm not upset with the GIDP player, because he made contact and put the ball in play.  Roughly 33% of the time, good things will happen when you do that.  Roughly 0% of the time will something good happen offensively with a strikeout.  Smart baseball.

Your turn.

TV on left.

I thought in your world, all outs were the same?

Have you changed your opinion?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
TV on right. 

Though I'm not upset with the GIDP player, because he made contact and put the ball in play.  Roughly 33% of the time, good things will happen when you do that.  Roughly 0% of the time will something good happen offensively with a strikeout.  Smart baseball.

Your turn.

TV on left.

I thought in your world, all outs were the same?

Have you changed your opinion?

I thought in your world, outs in play were always better than strikeouts?

Have you changed your opinion?

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem with arguing that a strikeout is the same as every other out, and why a lot of people have a problem with it, is that it may come across as if there's no difference between these 2 TVs:

1) Strikeout
2) Ball in play

Strikeouts are bad.  It gives you next to no chance of getting on base.  Hit the ball.

Out in play =/= ball in play.

That's correct.  I'm just telling you how the argument can come across when you say that.  Putting the ball in play is a good thing, it's much better than not putting the ball in play.  As tec said, it's harder to get mad at the guy who hit the ball hard right at someone than the guy who strikes out.

Sure. I think I've said multiple times that you want players to hit the ball. I know tec does his best to try to make it sound like I want guys going up there striking out. I don't. I just think that focusing on the strikeouts is dumb when a player is otherwise productive.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/28/2014 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem with arguing that a strikeout is the same as every other out, and why a lot of people have a problem with it, is that it may come across as if there's no difference between these 2 TVs:

1) Strikeout
2) Ball in play

Strikeouts are bad.  It gives you next to no chance of getting on base.  Hit the ball.

Out in play =/= ball in play.

That's correct.  I'm just telling you how the argument can come across when you say that.  Putting the ball in play is a good thing, it's much better than not putting the ball in play.  As tec said, it's harder to get mad at the guy who hit the ball hard right at someone than the guy who strikes out.

BABIP sez 30% of all balls in play are hits.

How many strikeouts become hits?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):
TV on right. 

Though I'm not upset with the GIDP player, because he made contact and put the ball in play.  Roughly 33% of the time, good things will happen when you do that.  Roughly 0% of the time will something good happen offensively with a strikeout.  Smart baseball.

Your turn.

TV on left.

I thought in your world, all outs were the same?

Have you changed your opinion?

I thought in your world, outs in play were always better than strikeouts?

Have you changed your opinion?

Nope.  Unless something has changed since the last time I checked, double plays count as two outs.  I think that's what the "double" part is referring to in the name.

A (single) out in play generally will not be worse than a strikeout, and will more often than not be better than a K.  Two outs will generally be worse than a strikeout.