Granderson to Yankees in 3-way trade? p. 20

[SouthSideRyan]

A .327 OBP and unable to hit lefties sounds like Jacque Jones to me.

 

Yes, I know hes better than JJ.

 

His rbi numbers are low when you look at the number of at bats and the amount of home runs he hits. I feel people are willing to give up way too much for him. Vitters name shouldn't even be mentioned.

 

Batting leadoff tends to suppress RBI totals.

[Guest]

A .327 OBP and unable to hit lefties sounds like Jacque Jones to me.

 

Yes, I know hes better than JJ.

 

His rbi numbers are low when you look at the number of at bats and the amount of home runs he hits. I feel people are willing to give up way too much for him. Vitters name shouldn't even be mentioned.

 

Batting leadoff tends to suppress RBI totals.

That's true, but I'd think long and hard before I gave up Vitters for him. If I thought his injury history, bad defense, and total lack of plate discipline were huge red flags I probably would do it. If I thought he could turn into an everyday 3rd baseman in the future I wouldn't do it.

[davearm2]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

[OleMissCub]

Was just looking at his VORP from the past three years and how he compares with the Cubs top 5 in those years

 

2007: Granderson - 64.7

 

Lee - 48.3

Ram - 43.5

Sori - 41.8

DeRo - 21.0

Floyd - 9.5

 

2008: 41.4

 

Ram - 44.5

Soto - 39.1

DeRo - 35.4

Sori - 32.2

Lee - 29.6

 

2009: 25.8

 

Lee - 51.0

Ram - 29.4

Fuku - 19.2

Theriot - 17.4

Bradley - 9.1

[davearm2]

FWIW following up on the post a few above:

 

Take Granderson's career line, halve his strikeout total (from 618 to 309), and credit him with an additional 93 singles (309 * 0.300), and his slash stats change from:

.272/.344/.484/.828

... to:

.308/.376/.519/.896

[17 Seconds]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them.

 

We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much.

 

And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period. You could just as easily make the argument that shortening your swing with 2 outs to avoid a K is what costs you a chance to hit and instead increase your chances of making weak contact. This has nothing to do with any argument I was making though, so I don't see the point.

 

So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs. Would he be better if he K'd less? Maybe, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not he's good as he is.

Edited November 16, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[17 Seconds]

FWIW following up on the post a few above:

 

Take Granderson's career line, halve his strikeout total (from 618 to 309), and credit him with an additional 93 singles (309 * 0.300), and his slash stats change from:

.272/.344/.484/.828

... to:

.308/.376/.519/.896

 

You must not have read all my posts, considerin g you're making a completely different argument (and I've already said this). was never saying that strikeouts don't affect how good a player is.

 

I'm not debating whether or not granderson would be better if he K'd less. I'm saying that he's still a good player with them.

 

Hopefully I don't have to say it a 3rd time.

[davearm2]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them.

 

We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much.

 

And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period.

 

So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs.

This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented.

[17 Seconds]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them.

 

We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much.

 

And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period.

 

So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs.

This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented.

 

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

[davearm2]

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them.

 

We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much.

 

And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period.

 

So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs.

This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented.

 

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

[Rob]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

Would Granderson be better if he didn't strike out so much? Yes.

 

But when we're comparing the production of two players, you don't get to double-count their strikeouts against them. Their strikeouts are already reflected in their final line.

[17 Seconds]

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

The things you talk about are only relevant if we're talking about a young player who has K concerns and you're questioning whether or not he can succeed in spite of them.

 

We're onot talking about that. We're talking about a proven player who has shown he will succeed despite the totals. When that's the case, no they don't really matter that much.

 

And this "it's costing you a chance to hit" argument is dumb. Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does. They're outs, period.

 

So yeah, if a guy has proven that he's going to perform (which Granderson has), then it doesn't really matter how you're making outs.

This statement is only correct if you assume a 0.000 BABIP. I'd suggest you try harder to follow what I presented.

 

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

 

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs.

 

Are you really not getting this?

 

I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's.

 

That's now 5 times I've explained it.

[17 Seconds]

Here's what I see as a regular fan, Granderson does strike out a lot, and of course I don't know what his K rate is with runners on base (that's a stat I'd like to see), but everytime he K's instead of putting the ball in play somehow, that was a chance wasted to move the runner over/drive in a run.

 

Or it saved him from a double play and only made one out instead of two.

 

You think strikouts are a lot worse than they really are. It's 2009. I thought these false beliefs were dead by now. The percentage of the time that a K actually hurts you more than a different kind of out is low. Most of the time it doesn't matter. It's like you have it stuck in your head that a ground ball out is usually going to be better than a K, when the vast majority of the time, it won't be.

 

If a guy pops up with a guy at second, is that "wasting a chance to drive him in"? No, he had the chance and he popped out. Just as if he had a chance and K'd.

Why are we comparing strikeouts to other kinds of outs?

 

If you put the ball in play, you have a 30% chance of getting a hit and a 70% chance of making an out (give or take a few percentage points).

 

When you strike out, you have a 0% chance of getting a hit and a 100% chance of making an out.

 

Now do you still think striking out a lot is no big deal? Every time you're costing yourself a decent chance at a hit.

 

Take one of those players on your list, whack his strikeouts in half, take the strikeouts that aren't strikeouts anymore and make 30% of those singles, and see what it does to the player's OPS.

 

Would Granderson be better if he didn't strike out so much? Yes.

 

But when we're comparing the production of two players, you don't get to double-count their strikeouts against them. Their strikeouts are already reflected in their final line.

 

Which is exactly what I've said over and over.

[davearm2]

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

 

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs.

 

Are you really not getting this?

 

I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's.

 

That's now 5 times I've explained it.

And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish.

 

The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs.

 

You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to.

[SouthSideRyan]

eliminating strikeouts = altering approach = not as solid of contact = less hits

[17 Seconds]

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

 

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs.

 

Are you really not getting this?

 

I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's.

 

That's now 5 times I've explained it.

And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish.

 

The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs.

 

You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to.

 

You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument.

 

Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice.

 

Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did.

 

Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point..

[17 Seconds]

eliminating strikeouts = altering approach = not as solid of contact = less hits

 

I mentioned that too, even though it has nothing to do with the original argument.

[davearm2]

eliminating strikeouts = altering approach = not as solid of contact = less hits

Eliminating strikeouts would indeed require an altered approach (although arguably only once the count reached two strikes).

 

There's certainly no evidence that either less solid contact or fewer hits would be the ultimate outcome though. Those conclusions are each highly speculative and debateable.

 

About the most I'd be comfortable assuming is that SLG in 2-strike counts would go down (and I have, by adding in only singles).

[17 Seconds]

Along with the Yankees and the Angels, sources say the Cubs plan an aggressive push to land Tigers center fielder Curtis Granderson.

 

A source close to the Cubs said Friday that general manager Jim Hendry "absolutely" is interested in offering a prospect-heavy package of players if Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski decides to trade the 28-year-old Illinois-Chicago product.

 

According to the source, Hendry and Dombrowski spoke about Granderson and other Tigers players during the GM meetings earlier in the week at the O'Hare Hilton. The question the Cubs and others are asking is whether the Tigers' economic difficulties are severe enough that Dombrowski would trade a top young talent such as Granderson.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-14-cubs-granderson-nov14,0,2987407.story

[davearm2]

I edited my post and added to that right before you posted that.

But anyways, I suggest that YOU try harder to follow what I'm saying, considering that all your arguments directed towards me on this page are about things that have nothing to do with my original statements.

 

I never ever said Granderson wouldn't be better if he K'd less.

 

I never said strikeouts can't hurt a player.

 

I DID say that K's don't keep a player from being productive as long as he puts up the numbers.

 

Hopefully I don't have to explain it a 4th time.

You've made the point that Granderson has been productive despite his K rate, that's true.

 

You've also made a separate point, that being that K's are no different than other kinds of outs. To wit: "Striking out isn't costing you a chance at anything any more than a popout or ground out does," and "it doesn't really matter how you're making outs."

 

Both of the those quotes are from you in this thread, and both are foolish, as I've (attempted to) illustrate for you.

 

Ugh, I'm saying that when you look at the outs AFTER the fact, they aren't really that different from other outs.

 

Are you really not getting this?

 

I'm saying that over the course of a full season, a .900 OPS guy with 140 K's isn't going to be much different from a .900 OPS guy with 80 k's.

 

That's now 5 times I've explained it.

And I'm explaining that looking at outs AFTER the fact makes you look foolish.

 

The reason is simple. All strikeouts are outs. Not all balls in play become outs.

 

You can continue tabulating the number times you've made ridiculous statements if you like, although I'm at a loss for why you'd want to.

 

You're not even making sense now. The fact that Rob backed it up despite the fact that he hates me pretty much shows you you're talking nonsense and that you just cant admit that you initially misunderstood my argument.

 

Does it need to be explained to you a 7th time that I'm talking about how strikeouts shouldn't be counted against a player's production when he's shown what it is? Like Rob said, you're counting K's against a player twice.

 

Strikeouts are already reflected in a players line. If a player is putting up an .850 OPS, you shouldn't be trying to discredit that because he stries out a lot, which is what the original poster did.

 

Hopefully you'll just cut your losses at this point..

If you can't follow how much sense I'm making here, then that's on you. Just go on believing that strikeouts are the same as other kinds of outs, and let the knowledgeable baseball fans here continue with the discussion.

[SouthSideRyan]

eliminating strikeouts = altering approach = not as solid of contact = less hits

Eliminating strikeouts would indeed require an altered approach (although arguably only once the count reached two strikes).

 

There's certainly no evidence that either less solid contact or fewer hits would be the ultimate outcome though. Those conclusions are each highly speculative and debateable.

 

About the most I'd be comfortable assuming is that SLG in 2-strike counts would go down (and I have, by adding in only singles).

 

What evidence exists that a player can simply eliminate half his strike outs if he'd just shorten up his swing? What makes you think the type of contact made on pitches that would ordinarily result in Ks would give you hits 30% of the time?

[rocket]

FWIW following up on the post a few above:

 

Take Granderson's career line, halve his strikeout total (from 618 to 309), and credit him with an additional 93 singles (309 * 0.300), and his slash stats change from:

.272/.344/.484/.828

... to:

.308/.376/.519/.896

 

his approach that makes him strike out a lot also contributes to him walking a lot. his obp would decrease, not increase.

[Rob]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

[davearm2]

eliminating strikeouts = altering approach = not as solid of contact = less hits

Eliminating strikeouts would indeed require an altered approach (although arguably only once the count reached two strikes).

 

There's certainly no evidence that either less solid contact or fewer hits would be the ultimate outcome though. Those conclusions are each highly speculative and debateable.

 

About the most I'd be comfortable assuming is that SLG in 2-strike counts would go down (and I have, by adding in only singles).

 

What evidence exists that a player can simply eliminate half his strike outs if he'd just shorten up his swing? What makes you think the type of contact made on pitches that would ordinarily result in Ks would give you hits 30% of the time?

We can have an intelligent discussion about exactly what those assumptions should be, and I'm certain there are strong arguments to be made that we ought to use lower parameters in the analysis than I have.

 

What can't be intelligently discussed is that not putting the ball in play at all is no worse than putting the ball in play. That's the logic at the heart of the whole "strikeouts are no worse than any other kind of out" principle.

[davearm2]

What exactly are you trying to argue, davearm? It seems like dexter is trying to argue overall production despite strikeouts, while you're keyed in on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs. It might help if you both argue about the same thing.

 

And dexter, I don't hate you. I just put you on ignore while you were in that annoying "I've learned just enough sabermetric stuff that I'm forming new opinions, but I'm doing it for all the wrong reasons" phase. I was particularly bad in that phase, so don't take it personally.

I'm definitely focused on his comment that strikeouts are no different than other kinds of outs, without a doubt. I hear that a lot these days, and it drives me crazy because it's so horribly flawed, for the simple reason I've outlined.