Strikeouts

[David]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".

 

Well, any .400 OBP guy walks often, that's part of what's behind the whole idea. So I'm not sure where you're going with this... :-k

[BigSlick]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".

 

Well, any .400 OBP guy walks often, that's part of what's behind the whole idea. So I'm not sure where you're going with this... :-k

 

I think he means Ted Williams.

 

I mean, thats the only way to get to .400 OBP without ever walking.

 

Ever.

[KaiserCesar]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".

 

Well, any .400 OBP guy walks often, that's part of what's behind the whole idea. So I'm not sure where you're going with this... :-k

 

There are some instances like the 99/00 Nomar, but I don't understand that 100 walk disclaimer. Thats generally how you get the .400 OBP, but if you're point is that anyone who doesn't walk and strikes out 200+ times isn't good, then I'll have to agree with you.

[BigbadB]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".

 

Well, any .400 OBP guy walks often, that's part of what's behind the whole idea. So I'm not sure where you're going with this... :-k

 

I think he means Ted Williams.

 

I mean, thats the only way to get to .400 OBP without ever walking.

 

Ever.

 

Ah, the Ted Williams with a lifetime .344 AVG and lifetime .482 OBP that never walked. Think about that. Lifetime .482 OBP. That's just insane.

 

He was a great hitter and didn't seem to mind taking the base if the pitcher didn't want to throw strikes. He averaged over a 100 walks a season also. Even though he only averaged 120 games played per season.

[CUBZ99]

 

 

Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

 

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well?

 

I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all.

 

Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

 

I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement.

 

Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time.

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

[BigSlick]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".

 

Well, any .400 OBP guy walks often, that's part of what's behind the whole idea. So I'm not sure where you're going with this... :-k

 

I think he means Ted Williams.

 

I mean, thats the only way to get to .400 OBP without ever walking.

 

Ever.

 

Ah, the Ted Williams with a lifetime .344 AVG and lifetime .482 OBP that never walked. Think about that. Lifetime .482 OBP. That's just insane.

 

He was a great hitter and didn't seem to mind taking the base if the pitcher didn't want to throw strikes. He averaged over a 100 walks a season also. Even though he only averaged 120 games played per season.

 

I'm just saying, the only way a player to ever reach a .400 OBP would be a ridiculously talented hitter like Williams...

 

Except for Williams to be such a great hitter he had to patient and take a lot of walks...

 

Its sort of like circular logic. It would be impossible for a hitter to reach .400 OBP without walking because pitchers would eventually be forced to walk him. That, and in most cases, good hitting is being patient and selective and finding good pitches to hit...which means more walks.

[rocket]

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

Striking out with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = 0% chance of double play

 

Putting the ball in play with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = >0% chance of a double play

[Bruno7481]

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

Striking out with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = 0% chance of double play

 

Putting the ball in play with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = >0% chance of a double play

 

Fine, but the object of the game is to score runs. Double plays will happen obviously on occasion, but you have to score to win. In order to score, you have to put the ball in play.

 

Why would you prefer the option that guarantees a 0% chance of a run scoring? Especially in this situation with the pitcher's spot coming up next? Doesn't make sense.

[David]

 

Striking out with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = 0% chance of double play

 

Putting the ball in play with a runner on 1st, less than 2 outs = >0% chance of a double play

 

Beat me to it.

[soccer10k]

This is one of those arguments that you can make a valid point either way.

[Caryatid]

 

 

Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

 

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well?

 

I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all.

 

Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

 

I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement.

 

Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time.

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter.

 

Actually striking out with the runner on 3rd=>0% chance, that is, if the catcher drops the third strike. You also didn't mention the number of outs, the situation, and where the ball would be put in play. Like I wrote earlier, all things being equal-sure, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But the point is that it really makes so little difference as to be almost completely insignificant.

[dalgreen]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

[sherwood921]

I think a lot of times strikeouts get booed because of the way the casual fan looks at it. When they see a strikeout, many times they think, he can't even hit the ball...whereas if a guy hits a nubber to short at least he hit it. Think back to little league and whatnot. The crummy players always struck out. To the common fan I think a lot of times a strikeout means you're a bad player because you don't have the talent to hit the ball regardless of whether you hit it hard, or get a base hit out of the deal. It's harder to hit the ball than to strike out, obviously...therefore a lot of times a strikeout is seen as the worst option, because it requires the least skill. Edited June 14, 2006 by sherwood921

[David]

Fine, but the object of the game is to score runs. Double plays will happen obviously on occasion, but you have to score to win. In order to score, you have to put the ball in play.

 

Making outs is what keeps you from scoring. A double-play is terribly undermining when it comes to scoring runs. They effectively cripple a team's chances of scoring in a given inning.

 

I'm almost positive that more than a few studies have shown that the possible advantage of advancing a runner on contact is counter-balanced by the possibility of hitting into some form of a double-play. In other words, the perceived disadvantage of a strikeout in that you can't advance a runner is balanced out by the advantage of the fact that there's no possibility for a catastrophic (in terms of scoring runs) double-play.

 

In short, over the long haul, an out is an out is an out.

[BigSlick]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

 

In order to be a good hitter, one has to be unafraid of striking out. The hitter must be able to take marginal pitches and work the count.

 

Thats why strike outs are overrated. Too often are they looked at as a huge negative in the evaluation a player, while certain players (Giambi, Dunn, etc.) strike out often but are incredibly useful players.

Edited June 14, 2006 by BigSlick

[David]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

 

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first?

 

I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully.

[CUBZ99]

 

 

Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

 

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well?

 

I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all.

 

Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

 

I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement.

 

Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time.

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter.

 

Actually striking out with the runner on 3rd=>0% chance, that is, if the catcher drops the third strike. You also didn't mention the number of outs, the situation, and where the ball would be put in play. Like I wrote earlier, all things being equal-sure, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But the point is that it really makes so little difference as to be almost completely insignificant.

 

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

Of his outs, Cedeno has GIDP 2.8% of the time this year. My guess is that most people would rather take their chances that it would have been one of the 97.2% outs or a hit rather than see him whiff and leave the pitcher to drive in the run. Ronnie needed to put the ball in play last night.

Edited June 14, 2006 by CUBZ99

[David]

I think a lot of times strikeouts get booed because of the way the casual fan looks at it. When they see a strikeout, many times they think, he can't even hit the ball...whereas if a guy hits a nubber to short at least he hit it. Think back to little league and whatnot. The crummy players always struck out. To the common fan I think a lot of times a strikeout means you're a bad player because you don't have the talent to hit the ball regardless of whether you hit it hard, or get a base hit out of the deal. It's harder to hit the ball than to strike out, obviously...therefore a lot of times a strikeout is seen as the worst option, because it requires the least skill.

 

I understand that this is by far the prevailing thinking. I'm just saying that it's completely wrong (and incredibly frustrating when I hear people harp on it).

 

"Sosa was so overrated. All that guy ever did was strikeout or hit home runs." :evil:

[Bruno7481]

Fine, but the object of the game is to score runs. Double plays will happen obviously on occasion, but you have to score to win. In order to score, you have to put the ball in play.

 

Making outs is what keeps you from scoring. A double-play is terribly undermining when it comes to scoring runs. They effectively cripple a team's chances of scoring in a given inning.

 

I'm almost positive that more than a few studies have shown that the possible advantage of advancing a runner on contact is counter-balanced by the possibility of hitting into some form of a double-play. In other words, the perceived disadvantage of a strikeout in that you can't advance a runner is balanced out by the advantage of the fact that there's no possibility for a catastrophic (in terms of scoring runs) double-play.

 

In short, over the long haul, an out is an out is an out.

 

So, in terms of the situation with Cedeno last night. Are you of the opinion him striking out was better than putting the ball in play? Even with the cance of him hitting into a DP?

 

I agree that over the long haul an out is an out. I'm not talking long haul though, there are definite situations where contact is needed and a strikeout is the worst thing that can happen. That is the point I am trying to convey.

 

Can't believe I am bringing Sosa into this, but he used to frustrate me so much. Sammy obviously was a huge offensive force who happened to strike out a lot. I know over the long haul he provided more offense and contributed to many wins. But I would hate to see him come up in situations where just some simple contact was needed. Be it late in the game, infield in, whatever the situation may be. In situations like those I would prefer Grace to be up to bat 100% of the time.

 

Yes Sammy provided better numbers of the whole year, but Grace was a better executor in those situations.

 

Wow, does that anology even make sense? Its been a long day.

[Caryatid]

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote:

 

"So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter."

 

A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

[David]

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote:

 

"So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter."

 

A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

 

Very good example of what I'm trying to say here.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

When discussing double plays, perhaps it would help to understand the rate at which players hit into double plays. I don't know how easy it is to get those numbers, but is it possible that if the rate were low enough that making contact proved to be better? A fielder's choice is also a possiblity. If the batter makes contact and the out is recorded at 2nd, but the end result is a much quicker player on 1st, is that better than a K? As a general rule, I think there is too much emphasis being put on the strikeout, but how much of that is deserved?

 

I don't know, just asking.

[Bruno7481]

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote:

 

"So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter."

 

A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

 

Very good example of what I'm trying to say here.

 

Problem with that though is that you can't predict the future. You don't know what he is going to do. I'll take the chance of the #8 hole putting the ball in play in that kind of situation 100% of the time. True, he could hit into a DP, but I'd rather take that chance over having the pitcher come up next.

[CUBZ99]

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote:

 

"So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter."

 

A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

 

:roll: Wow, your really going out on a limb with your argument. You will never find a person who would take a double play in that situation the over strikeout. But your comment adds nothing to the discussion. The point being made was that in that situation most people would rather take the chance that something positive would happen if he put the ball in play over the chance that there would be a double play. The strikeout last night accomplished absolutely nothing.

[Caryatid]

You would rather that a guy strikeout, leaving the pitcher to bat than have him put the ball in play and take your chances with less outs?

 

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote:

 

"So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter."

 

A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

 

:roll: Wow, your really going out on a limb with your argument. You will never find a person who would take a double play in that situation the over strikeout. But your comment adds nothing to the discussion. The point being made was that in that situation most people would rather take the chance that something positive would happen if he put the ball in play over the chance that there would be a double play. The strikeout last night accomplished absolutely nothing.

 

You're using hindsight to prove your argument as well, and you're misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make.

 

This isn't about situations-its about players. As I've written now THREE TIMES, all things being equal, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But "putting the ball in play" is not enough to overcome any discrepancies in OBP, SLG, VORP, etc. Simply saying "he's better because he puts the ball in play" is shortsighted and incomplete.

 

If you want to play the "there might be an error" game, well, there were 3046 errors in MLB last year, versus 4656 double plays. So the odds that there will be an error is significantly lower than the odds there will be a double play.

 

And your assessment of what my comments adds or does not add to the conversation is unneccesary at best.