MLB: a bag of a**holes. Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):
And (many) more productive outs.
OK, how do you know it will be many more? In the same way that not all outs in play in double play situations lead to double plays, all outs in play in productive out situations aren't necessarily productive. Just reducing the overall K rate wouldn't necessarily cause a huge increase in productive outs.

And again, the "benefit" (or lesser negative) of a productive out is really small. If a player is otherwise productive, why jeopardize that productivity just for the sake of reducing his K rate?


5/27/2014 1:48 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 157 32 129
Prospect
A small increase is better than no increase at all.

Let's say you increase your likelihood of scoring by .1 runs a game.  Over the course of a season, that's 16.2 runs.  Isn't the rule of thumb by the stat--nerds (10 runs = 1 win).

So that's an additional 1-2 wins a season.  I'll take that over "keep swinging hard, Jimmy!"
5/27/2014 2:06 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 2:06:00 PM (view original):
A small increase is better than no increase at all.

Let's say you increase your likelihood of scoring by .1 runs a game.  Over the course of a season, that's 16.2 runs.  Isn't the rule of thumb by the stat--nerds (10 runs = 1 win).

So that's an additional 1-2 wins a season.  I'll take that over "keep swinging hard, Jimmy!"
You didn't answer the question. How do you know it will be "many more?"

Also, you made that number up as a hypothetical and then applied it like it was fact. What if increasing productive outs actually cost teams .1 runs a game due to increased double plays?

Also #2, do you buy into the "stat-nerd" rule of thumb?


5/27/2014 2:12 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 157 32 129
Prospect
"You didn't answer the question. How do you know it will be "many more?"

I know it in the same way that you "know" that all situations with runners on first and less than two outs will be "ground ball disasters".

"You made that number up as a hypothetical and then applied it like it was fact."

Hypotheticals are not facts.  Did you think I was asserting that it was fact?  Did my leading with "Let's say . . . . " confuse you?

"Also #2, do you buy into the "stat-nerd" rule of thumb?"

Increasing the probability of scoring should, logically, result in more runs scored over the long run.  Scoring more runs over the long run should, logically, lead to more victories over the course of a season.  That's common sense.  Whether it's (10 runs = 1 win), I have no idea.  But that's what "your people" claim, so let's go with that for the sake of argument.
5/27/2014 2:30 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
One more question for you tec, is there any evidence that teams score more runs when they strikeout less?
5/27/2014 2:30 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 157 32 129
Prospect
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?

5/27/2014 2:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Uh-oh.   Looks like the tec/BL discussion needs burnsy's stat for measuring "common sense".
5/27/2014 2:36 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):
"You didn't answer the question. How do you know it will be "many more?"

I know it in the same way that you "know" that all situations with runners on first and less than two outs will be "ground ball disasters".

"You made that number up as a hypothetical and then applied it like it was fact."

Hypotheticals are not facts.  Did you think I was asserting that it was fact?  Did my leading with "Let's say . . . . " confuse you?

"Also #2, do you buy into the "stat-nerd" rule of thumb?"

Increasing the probability of scoring should, logically, result in more runs scored over the long run.  Scoring more runs over the long run should, logically, lead to more victories over the course of a season.  That's common sense.  Whether it's (10 runs = 1 win), I have no idea.  But that's what "your people" claim, so let's go with that for the sake of argument.
1) I never said that.

2) You concluded with this: "So that's an additional 1-2 wins a season.  I'll take that over 'keep swinging hard, Jimmy!'"

You made a number up and then said "I'll take that..." Big whoop. I say productive outs actually cost teams 480 runs per game. That's almost 50 wins a season. I'll keep the Ks and the 50 additional wins, thank you very much.

3) If you don't know the benefit of doing something, how do you know if it is the right move?

5/27/2014 2:37 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

No one ever scores on a strikeout.   Unless, of course, the pitch somehow gets to the backstop. 

5/27/2014 2:37 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
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.
5/27/2014 2:38 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Uh-oh.   Looks like the tec/BL discussion needs burnsy's stat for measuring "common sense".
Still hung up on that? :)  I'm sorry you can't understand how swinging to simply make contact would negatively affect your atbats when you could have driven the ball.
5/27/2014 3:54 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
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.
5/27/2014 4:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Uh-oh.   Looks like the tec/BL discussion needs burnsy's stat for measuring "common sense".
Still hung up on that? :)  I'm sorry you can't understand how swinging to simply make contact would negatively affect your atbats when you could have driven the ball.
Do you think professional baseball players have to take half-speed swings to ensure they make contact?
5/27/2014 4:20 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
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.
5/27/2014 4:32 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/27/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2014 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Uh-oh.   Looks like the tec/BL discussion needs burnsy's stat for measuring "common sense".
Still hung up on that? :)  I'm sorry you can't understand how swinging to simply make contact would negatively affect your atbats when you could have driven the ball.
Do you think professional baseball players have to take half-speed swings to ensure they make contact?
They'll need to drastically change their swing to ensure they'll make contact.  There aren't many elite hitters who don't strike out much.  The guys who don't strike out much generally don't drive the ball.  I'd say this is common sense but you'd be upset about it.
5/27/2014 4:34 PM
◂ Prev 1...23|24|25|26|27...49 Next ▸
MLB: a bag of a**holes. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.