Rogers: Cubs Could Be #1 in NL IF They Acquired a #2 Starter

[David]

I think it would be really nice if our hitters made outs less often.

[XZero771679666304]

so striking out 25% of the time & not moving runners is a good thing?

 

You know that bad things can happen when you put the ball in play, right?

 

For example, because Theriot makes contact so often, he cost the Cubs 5 double plays more than the average MLB player would have made last year.

 

Soriano, on the other hand, was better at avoiding double plays than any other Cubs starter (unless you want to count Felix Pie).

 

There is a demonstrable negative correlation between strikeout rate and double play rate.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=292385

 

 

It's just my opinion, but I thought GIDP's were more of a problem for the Cubs than K's in 2007. Far more, actually.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

[JeffH]

A high strikeout rate is usually an absolute killer when it comes to the development of a hitting prospect.

 

Once players are established, though, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether a .375/.475/.850 guy strikes out a lot or a little. I suppose I'd take the guy who doesn't K much, but I wouldn't sacrifice very many points of OPS for fewer strikeouts.

[David]

The odd thing is, wrigley has referred to the Cubs as a lineup full of "strikeout kings" in other threads. How crappy of a kingdom is that when the Cubs only had the 11th most strikeouts in the NL and 18th most in MLB?

[David]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

[jersey cubs fan]

A high strikeout rate is usually an absolute killer when it comes to the development of a hitting prospect.

 

Once players are established, though, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether a .375/.475/.850 guy strikes out a lot or a little. I suppose I'd take the guy who doesn't K much, but I wouldn't sacrifice very many points of OPS for fewer strikeouts.

 

Yeah, I'd take a team full of Pujols bats if I could as well. But I'm not going to scoff at a producer who also happens to K a lot, regardless of spot in order.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

I never said the batter has a choice. I was merely saying that one out isn't the same as another. As for striking out, of course it's better than a DP. Just throwing out a statement that an out is an out is incorrect, they have different impacts/results.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

 

What were you saying then?

[rawaction]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

I never said the batter has a choice. I was merely saying that one out isn't the same as another. As for striking out, of course it's better than a DP. Just throwing out a statement that an out is an out is incorrect, they have different impacts/results.

 

9 times out of 10 all outs are the same. An everyday player gets 650 plate appearances each year. A minimal amount of those come in situations where a strikeout is worse than any other out.

[DenverCubs]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

 

What were you saying then?

This is ridiculous. Of course in certain situations some "kinds of outs" are preferred, but on average, an out is an out. Sometimes you hit a weak ground ball to the perfect place and get a hit. Sometimes you hit a hard line drive right to the third baseman and make an out. It all evens out.

What the hell were we supposed to be discussing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

 

What were you saying then?

 

I think that's obvious. What I'd like to know is why you purposefully and obnoxiously added an obviously baseless "so you would rather" assumption into your response when nowhere in my post did I come anywhere close to even suggesting I would prefer a k to a deep fly in that situation.

[fromthestretch]

leadoff hitters should take pitches...definitely take more walks than k's. i never said anything about ground balls being a good thing. they should get on base....however it takes to do it...and don't make outs...ground outs, k's or otherwise. they also need to be a good baserunner. a base stealing threat is a bonus. soriano swings like a middle of the order guy. he does not take the mental approach to the plate as a leadoff hitter.

 

Here's a list of players with more than 40 BB in 2007 that happened to walk more than they struck out (or had the same number of each). I didn't include anyone with less than 40 walks because, let's face it, if they're playing a full season and draw less than 40 walks, their OBP is always going to be highly dependent on their batting average. I probably should have cut the list off at 60 walks.

 

Player: BB/K

Bonds: 132/54

Helton: 116/74

Ortiz: 111/103

Pujols: 99/58

Sheffield: 84/71

Chipper Jones: 82/75

Hideki Matsui: 73/73

Brian Giles: 64/61

Vidro: 63/57

Mauer: 57/51

Luis Gonzalez: 56/56

Lofton: 56/51

Schneider: 56/56

Luis Castillo: 53/45

Kotchman: 53/43

Conor Jackson: 53/50

Hatteberg: 49/35

Pedroia: 47/42

Loretta: 44/41

 

When you take out those that don't qualify as good baserunners (your criteria as listed above), the list gets very short. Now, outside of Lofton and possibly Castillo, which of these would you classify as a "traditional leadoff hitter?"

[Derwood]

leadoff hitter #-o

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

I never said the batter has a choice. I was merely saying that one out isn't the same as another. As for striking out, of course it's better than a DP. Just throwing out a statement that an out is an out is incorrect, they have different impacts/results.

 

9 times out of 10 all outs are the same. An everyday player gets 650 plate appearances each year. A minimal amount of those come in situations where a strikeout is worse than any other out.

 

So basically you're going by a whole season of AB's and not a game by game breakdown? My question to you raw is what if there is a runner at third and less than 2 outs, when does it balance out better for the contact hitter over one that strikes out frequently? I understand the percentages playing out over time.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

 

What were you saying then?

 

I think that's obvious. What I'd like to know is why you purposefully and obnoxiously added an obviously baseless "so you would rather" assumption into your response when nowhere in my post did I come anywhere close to even suggesting I would prefer a k to a deep fly in that situation.

 

I didn't mean for it to sound so challenging, I just was asking for clarification of what you meant.

[SouthSideRyan]

How bout this, in most situations(barring something like a late inning, close game situation), I'd rather my hitter be up there trying to get on base for himself rather than sacrificing himself to get the runner in or over. I'd rather have good contact and strikeouts than weak contact. If you have to sacrifice some contact to have a better likelihood of getting a hit on the contact you make then you take it.

[David]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

I never said the batter has a choice. I was merely saying that one out isn't the same as another. As for striking out, of course it's better than a DP. Just throwing out a statement that an out is an out is incorrect, they have different impacts/results.

 

 

Neither did I, nor was I suggesting that you did. GMs and managers make the choice when they pick and choose what kinds of players they put on the field. Within that context, considering all outs equal is the right way to do it.

 

All these situations that can come up during games are beyond anyone's control and when they come up, the choices have already been made. The abilities and tendencies of the players that are out there aren't going to change. Of course there are tons of situations you can use to show that certain types of outs are better than others. As you seem to know, they go both ways and they even out in the long run.

[Exile on Waveland]

.

 

The stigma associated with strikeouts is inexplicable to me.

 

I think the stigma is explicable. It's the dogmatic obsession with the strikeout once logic has been entered into the discussion that is inexplicable to me.

 

 

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

I'm glad you admit the later. I know "an out is an out," and I don't put much stock into strikeouts when evaluating a player. What matters is how much a player produces, not what happens when he fails. However, I still can't help but be more upset at a strikeout than a flyout. Irrational it may be, but I think it's also a natural reaction.

[CarolinaCubFan]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game.

 

Putting the ball in play pros:

 

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense.

 

Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out.

 

We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Yes, Cuse, that's exactly what I said. By writing that I believe in the out is an out theory, I was really saying that with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs I would prefer a strikeout to a deep fly ball to the OF.

 

What were you saying then?

 

I think that's obvious. What I'd like to know is why you purposefully and obnoxiously added an obviously baseless "so you would rather" assumption into your response when nowhere in my post did I come anywhere close to even suggesting I would prefer a k to a deep fly in that situation.

 

I didn't mean for it to sound so challenging, I just was asking for clarification of what you meant.

 

No you weren't. You specifically took my "out is an out" statement, that did not include any reference to a prefered form of out, and then purposefully inserted a preference that you obviously knew would be illogical.

 

 

For the record, I would prefer the deep fly.

 

But my focus is going to be almost exclusively on the production at the plate numbers. If there is match of players, discounting things like age, salary, and other variables, I would prefer the one that strikes out less, unless that reduction in strikeouts is met with a net detrimental increase in double plays.

 

I do believe that specifically playing for the sac fly is usually rather stupid. If a guy is on 2nd, and you use an out to get him to 3rd, you are basically leaving the value of that decision up to the next hitter alone, as opposed to all 3 guys, because he's the only one with a chance to have another productive out. The next guy is going to have to get a hit anyway. And you are basically taking the bat out of two players hands, because you are forcing one to ground out to the right side and forcing the next guy to hit a deep fly, as opposed to letting them use their normal comfortable swings. And they will be doing this all while the opposing pitcher is probably going to be doing whatever he can to prevent a deep fly. And even if that player does find a pitch he can hit into the air, you are narrowing his chances for success even further because while in a normal at bat, he has the option of hitting to left, center, right, on the ground, line drive or in the air, on any given pitch, in a "hit a deep fly to the OF" situation he doesn't have the leeway of taking what he is given. I would prefer a thought process of hit it hard, and if it's an option, deep in the air.

 

A weak groundball to 1st with no outs and a man on second is rarely a good thing. That player deserves far less recognition than the player who may, or instance, lines one sharply down the line but just foul, and then lines out to short. At least that 2nd guy gave you a couple of really good swings, and a chance for a nice inning.

 

I would bet the vast majority of so called "productive outs" don't actually lead to the production of runs anyway. So, while a deep fly ball to the OF is clearly better than a strikeout with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, the whole topic of strikeouts, their perceived and actual negative value, and how they relate to so-called "productive outs", isn't worth the amount of time and thought put into the discussion.

[fromthestretch]

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

In 97,556 chances. In other words, errors were only made on 1.7% of the chances that fielders had.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm a firm believer in the "an out is an out" theory, but my initial reaction to almost all strikeouts from Cubs players is still a little more vitriolic than most any other outs.

 

So you would rather have a hitter K with a man on third than hit a deep fly ball to the OF with 1 out? I understand what you're saying but an out isn't an out straight across the line.

 

Obviously not, but when is this "choice" going to come up?

 

You can't base player personnel decisions on these types of situation, because by and large, hitters aren't coming up in these situations. I can bring up a choice of hypotheticals like this too, where the K would be the far preferable result.

 

That's why I love baseball, all the variables are a chess game.

 

Putting the ball in play pros:

Errors - the NL made 1,616 of them last season

 

Poor defenders / defenses - A guy that could hit the ball to Chris Duncan four times a game is likely to have a productive day. Prince Fielder may hit a ton, but he's not goin to have great range on Defense.

 

Advancing runners - As Cuse pointed out.

 

We all have our own opinions. My experiece tells me these hypotheticals do matter, I'm just not smart enough to back them up with stats. :D

 

I think the mistake is thinking there are choices involved here. You don't just choose to put it in play or choose to strikeout. You try to hit the ball hard and go from there.

 

Baseball is much less of a chess game than the myth makers in the media would like everybody to believe. The vast majority of outcomes are determined by the ability of the players taking part, mainly the pitcher and the hitter.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think it would be really nice if our hitters made outs less often.

 

In recent years the Cubs have been both at or near the top and bottom in strikeouts. They've been at or near the top in sacrifices as well. What they haven't been is anywhere near the top in walks taken, OBP or runs scored. That is what matters.