Beane altering some philosphies?

[hawkeyecub]

Buster Olney was on Baseball Tonight as they were discussing the A's success. Surprisingly, the A's are first in the league in least amount of strikeouts per batter. Essentially, they've been the best contact hitting team in the league which of course wouldn't have been expected.

He said in talking to Beane, Billy told him the biggest philosophy change he's made is regarding the strikeout. Olney said a few years ago Beane would have loved a lineup full of Kingman's, but not so anymore.

I also caught him on ESPN News discussing the same topic, saying that watching this team and previous teams he's gained an appreciation for putting the ball in play and making so-called productive outs.

 

Has anyone read or heard anything similar?

Thoughts?

[eburgcub]

Liked this quote or part of the story "gained an appreciation for putting the ball in play and making so-called productive outs". I've always thought making contact was a good thing for hitters. Sure your big sluggers generally are going to strikeout alot. But, you need also need the other so called contact hittters to round out your lineup to be successful. Then this will bring up the issue of OPS which could be the most important. It's a nice cycle of discussion that could go on and on.... Edited August 14, 2005 by eburgcub

[Sarcastic]

Buster Olney was on Baseball Tonight as they were discussing the A's success. Surprisingly, the A's are first in the league in least amount of strikeouts per batter. Essentially, they've been the best contact hitting team in the league which of course wouldn't have been expected.

He said in talking to Beane, Billy told him the biggest philosophy change he's made is regarding the strikeout. Olney said a few years ago Beane would have loved a lineup full of Kingman's, but not so anymore.

I also caught him on ESPN News discussing the same topic, saying that watching this team and previous teams he's gained an appreciation for putting the ball in play and making so-called productive outs.

 

Has anyone read or heard anything similar?

Thoughts?

 

The A's haven't struck out much, but I wouldn't call them a team based on contact hitting. They have a team BA of .267, 10th in the AL.

 

Did Olney say anything about why Beane thought that avoiding strikeouts was a good thing?

Edited August 14, 2005 by Sarcastic

[erik316wttn]

This is why the "Well, he K'ed, at least he didn't hit into a DP" argument doesn't hold water.

 

True. A strikeout is only one out while a DP is two. However, I'd MUCH rather have a "productive" out (one that moves a runner over) than one that leaves the runners where they are.

 

If you make contact, granted you'll hit into your fair share of DP's. But give me a lineup with about 3 speedy contact guys in there to leg out those DP's and I'll give you a 1st place ballclub.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This is why the "Well, he K'ed, at least he didn't hit into a DP" argument doesn't hold water.

 

True. A strikeout is only one out while a DP is two. However, I'd MUCH rather have a "productive" out (one that moves a runner over) than one that leaves the runners where they are.

 

If you make contact, granted you'll hit into your fair share of DP's. But give me a lineup with about 3 speedy contact guys in there to leg out those DP's and I'll give you a 1st place ballclub.

 

Here's my issue with that. A hitter's mentality has gone from "try to get a hit/get on base", to "hit it to this side of the field/hit it with this elevation, so if I make an out something good will happen". The hitter is no longer focused on success, he's trying to make sure his failure isn't as bad. Does that make sense?

 

Also, relating to Beane's comments, valuing hitters that make contact and valuing hitters that make productive outs are not the same thing necessarily. I'm interested to see Beane's exact comments.

[10man]

The A's haven't struck out much, but I wouldn't call them a team based on contact hitting. They have a team BA of .267, 10th in the AL.

 

Did Olney say anything about why Beane thought that avoid strikeouts was a good thing?

BA is not exactly indicative of a team that doesn't make contact. Neifi Perez makes a lot of contact (avoiding the strikeout) but he doesn't have a good BA. Most likely the A's have a low team BABIP meaning they make a lot of contact but more of them become outs than other teams with higher BA.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The A's haven't struck out much, but I wouldn't call them a team based on contact hitting. They have a team BA of .267, 10th in the AL.

 

Did Olney say anything about why Beane thought that avoid strikeouts was a good thing?

BA is not exactly indicative of a team that doesn't make contact. Neifi Perez makes a lot of contact (avoiding the strikeout) but he doesn't have a good BA. Most likely the A's have a low team BABIP meaning they make a lot of contact but more of them become outs than other teams with higher BA.

 

Correct. The A's are 13th of 14 AL teams in BABIP. Only The White Sox are worse.

[Sarcastic]

The A's haven't struck out much, but I wouldn't call them a team based on contact hitting. They have a team BA of .267, 10th in the AL.

 

Did Olney say anything about why Beane thought that avoiding strikeouts was a good thing?

BA is not exactly indicative of a team that doesn't make contact. Neifi Perez makes a lot of contact (avoiding the strikeout) but he doesn't have a good BA. Most likely the A's have a low team BABIP meaning they make a lot of contact but more of them become outs than other teams with higher BA.

 

Well, yes, they do put the ball into play, but generally when people talk about contact hitters, they mean hitters who have a high batting average, not necessarily those who literally make a lot of contact. Neifi puts the ball into play with the best of them, but he is definitely not known as one of the best contact hitters in the game.

 

I may be wrong, but aren't batters supposed to have some control over their BABIP? If so, then the A's may be more than just unlucky. They might just put be putting a lot of weak grounders and pop-ups into play. Anybody know what their expected BABIP is?

[frostwyrm]

I'm not a fan of the "productive out" mentality. With an attitude like that you may as well sac bunt every time a man is on base.

[Sarcastic]

I'm not a fan of the "productive out" mentality. With an attitude like that you may as well sac bunt every time a man is on base.

 

Does going for a productive out necessarily make the batter less likely to get a hit or a walk? I don't think there have been any conclusive studies done on this, and I have no idea how anyone would try to do one. One thing I am sure of is that I wouldn't complain if the Cubs had a few more productive outs with men on third and less than two outs.

Productive outs are rubbish. Read Weaver. Read Moneyball. Why have pitchers try to sac bunt when they should instead try to draw the walk? Like Earl says, the sacrifice bunt has its place, but usually, its place is in a dark corner of a forgotten closet.

 

Or not. Or you could be like Pete Orr this afternoon, and fail at a bunt three times and K, and look like an ass. Whatev.

[Sarcastic]

Productive outs are rubbish. Read Weaver. Read Moneyball. Why have pitchers try to sac bunt when they should instead try to draw the walk? Like Earl says, the sacrifice bunt has its place, but usually, its place is in a dark corner of a forgotten closet.

 

Or not. Or you could be like Pete Orr this afternoon, and fail at a bunt three times and K, and look like an ass. Whatev.

 

What about sacrifice flies and sacrifice groundouts? There is more than one kind of productive out. Bunting is overused, but moving a batter home on a groundball is truly a productive out. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with a groundout is that you lose an out. If that's the one run you need to win, fine, but if you need more ground to make up, that's not the best way to go about it. Sac flies are acceptable--you tried to hit a homer, it didn't get far enough, send a runner home. But sac flies aren't really easy to hit, because the pitcher is probably going to feed you potential double play balls in such a situation. But I don't think a sacrifice groundout is any good unless the run in question is the crucial run.

[Sarcastic]

What's wrong with a groundout is that you lose an out. If that's the one run you need to win, fine, but if you need more ground to make up, that's not the best way to go about it. Sac flies are acceptable--you tried to hit a homer, it didn't get far enough, send a runner home. But sac flies aren't really easy to hit, because the pitcher is probably going to feed you potential double play balls in such a situation. But I don't think a sacrifice groundout is any good unless the run in question is the crucial run.

 

I'm not saying that a player should aim to ground out and move a runner over, but in situations with a runner on its a good idea to try to put the ball in play. You wouldn't want the batter to go out flailing but with a man on third and one out, try to put the ball in play if a hitter's pitch is thrown. Hopefully you get a hit, but if not you have a decent chance of moving the runner over. Of course, every situation is different. If the batter at the plate is a bad contact hitter, he should probably play to his strengths.

[Tim]

Productive outs are rubbish. Read Weaver. Read Moneyball. Why have pitchers try to sac bunt when they should instead try to draw the walk? Like Earl says, the sacrifice bunt has its place, but usually, its place is in a dark corner of a forgotten closet.

 

Or not. Or you could be like Pete Orr this afternoon, and fail at a bunt three times and K, and look like an ass. Whatev.

 

What about sacrifice flies and sacrifice groundouts? There is more than one kind of productive out. Bunting is overused, but moving a batter home on a groundball is truly a productive out. What's wrong with that?

Because the situation is so rare that the importance of it is completely overblown. You have to have a runner on 2nd with less than two outs in order to "move a runner over with a ground ball".

 

I wonder what % of AB's occur in this situation?

[UK1679666180]

It's all bat control, those with good bat control typically hit for a higher avg. and have a better eye and put the ball into play in the right spot/situation.

 

How well a hitter advances baserunners with groundouts isn't high on my priority lists, if he can hit, that ability becomes an added bonus.

[wade]

I think the main thing about his (Beane's) philosophy is to find what other clubs are undervalueing, and pursue good players with those traits. As the rest of the baseball world starts valueing OBP more, those players make more money and price themselves out of the A's budget. So Beane, being a good G.M., may focus on defense more in an effort to find quality players at a more affordable price.

 

I read an article on this months ago, but can't find it now.

[hawkeyecub]

Yeah sorry I don't have the exact quotes, that's why I asked if anyone had read anything on this topic. Olney was just relaying the information from a conversation he had with Beane.

 

And yes by calling them contact hitters it didn't mean that they have one of the highest team batting averages, but they put the ball into play more than anyone else, because they strike out the least.

 

Also from what Olney said, it sounded like Beane valued hitters that make contact and put the ball into play more than hitters that make productive outs. During the BBTN segment he didn't even mention productive outs. When he was on ESPN News he said the same thing, but also said something about how much they've improved at moving runners over and making productive outs. He said it right with the Beane quotes so it was hard to tell if that was also coming from Billy, or if Olney was adding that in on his own.

[rawaction]

This is why the "Well, he K'ed, at least he didn't hit into a DP" argument doesn't hold water.

 

True. A strikeout is only one out while a DP is two. However, I'd MUCH rather have a "productive" out (one that moves a runner over) than one that leaves the runners where they are.

 

If you make contact, granted you'll hit into your fair share of DP's. But give me a lineup with about 3 speedy contact guys in there to leg out those DP's and I'll give you a 1st place ballclub.

 

Here's my issue with that. A hitter's mentality has gone from "try to get a hit/get on base", to "hit it to this side of the field/hit it with this elevation, so if I make an out something good will happen". The hitter is no longer focused on success, he's trying to make sure his failure isn't as bad. Does that make sense?

 

This is the best post here. And yes, it makes sense. I don't want players changing their approaches at the plate just because a runner is on 2nd with none out. Everyone used to bag on Sammy for striking out and not cutting down his swing to go to the right side on these situations. But to me, that's much more of a waste than a strikeout. If you try to hit the ball to the right side, that's exactly what you are gonna do. Best case scenario, runner moves up 1 base....1 more out is on the board. If the hitter keeps his same approach, best case scenario is a HR. Worst case scenario is a strikeout or doubleplay.

 

In it's simplest form, more good can come out of a normal approach than a limiting approach. More bad can come also. But the difference between having a run or 2 on the board already (after runner on 2B, with none out) and having a runner at 3B with 1 out, is MUCH GREATER than the difference of having that runner on 3B with 1 out and having him at 2nd with 1 out.

[Guest]

Productive outs are rubbish. Read Weaver. Read Moneyball. Why have pitchers try to sac bunt when they should instead try to draw the walk? Like Earl says, the sacrifice bunt has its place, but usually, its place is in a dark corner of a forgotten closet.

 

Or not. Or you could be like Pete Orr this afternoon, and fail at a bunt three times and K, and look like an ass. Whatev.

 

What about sacrifice flies and sacrifice groundouts? There is more than one kind of productive out. Bunting is overused, but moving a batter home on a groundball is truly a productive out. What's wrong with that?

Because the situation is so rare that the importance of it is completely overblown. You have to have a runner on 2nd with less than two outs in order to "move a runner over with a ground ball".

 

I wonder what % of AB's occur in this situation?

In 2004 it was just about 7.5%. 14,127 PA of the total 188,539 occurred with runners on second and/or third with less than two outs.

[erik316wttn]

This is why the "Well, he K'ed, at least he didn't hit into a DP" argument doesn't hold water.

 

True. A strikeout is only one out while a DP is two. However, I'd MUCH rather have a "productive" out (one that moves a runner over) than one that leaves the runners where they are.

 

If you make contact, granted you'll hit into your fair share of DP's. But give me a lineup with about 3 speedy contact guys in there to leg out those DP's and I'll give you a 1st place ballclub.

 

Here's my issue with that. A hitter's mentality has gone from "try to get a hit/get on base", to "hit it to this side of the field/hit it with this elevation, so if I make an out something good will happen". The hitter is no longer focused on success, he's trying to make sure his failure isn't as bad. Does that make sense?

 

This is the best post here. And yes, it makes sense. I don't want players changing their approaches at the plate just because a runner is on 2nd with none out. Everyone used to bag on Sammy for striking out and not cutting down his swing to go to the right side on these situations. But to me, that's much more of a waste than a strikeout. If you try to hit the ball to the right side, that's exactly what you are gonna do. Best case scenario, runner moves up 1 base....1 more out is on the board. If the hitter keeps his same approach, best case scenario is a HR. Worst case scenario is a strikeout or doubleplay.

 

In it's simplest form, more good can come out of a normal approach than a limiting approach. More bad can come also. But the difference between having a run or 2 on the board already (after runner on 2B, with none out) and having a runner at 3B with 1 out, is MUCH GREATER than the difference of having that runner on 3B with 1 out and having him at 2nd with 1 out.

 

Oh, I agree with CPatterson completely. I'm not saying a player should go up there with the "well, I should hit it to the left/right side" mentality, they should just go up there and forget about trying to pull it or whatever. They should look for a pitch they can make good, solid contact on and go for that. But, if they do make an out, a productive one is better than nothing.

 

Other than a sac bunt, you shouldn't be aiming to make an out. Simply try to take a pitch to drive somewhere.

[TB_11]

I think the main thing about his (Beane's) philosophy is to find what other clubs are undervalueing, and pursue good players with those traits. As the rest of the baseball world starts valueing OBP more, those players make more money and price themselves out of the A's budget. So Beane, being a good G.M., may focus on defense more in an effort to find quality players at a more affordable price.

 

I read an article on this months ago, but can't find it now.

 

Beane's philosophy is to find what's undervalued and overvalued in the market and take advantage of those. He felt that during the offseason teams were overvaluing starting pitching, so he unloaded Mulder and Hudson.

 

I have seen the same article (ESPN.com, I believe) where they mentioned the A's going after defense - a little surprising.

[cubbieinexile]

Buster Olney has an agenda. That agenda is the productive out and he will look for support where ever it may be even if it doesn't exist. Olney is simply latching on to boy genius by turning his statements about making contact into making productive outs.

[oldcubsfan]

I think the main thing about his (Beane's) philosophy is to find what other clubs are undervalueing, and pursue good players with those traits. As the rest of the baseball world starts valueing OBP more, those players make more money and price themselves out of the A's budget. So Beane, being a good G.M., may focus on defense more in an effort to find quality players at a more affordable price.

 

I read an article on this months ago, but can't find it now.

You seem to understand the idea perfectly. Geez, reading some of the posts, it seems like some feel betrayed that he changes his philosophy. People take Moneyball as a bible and all it really was is a book about a year in baseball.

[Warren Brusstar]

Buster Olney was on Baseball Tonight as they were discussing the A's success. Surprisingly, the A's are first in the league in least amount of strikeouts per batter. Essentially, they've been the best contact hitting team in the league which of course wouldn't have been expected.

He said in talking to Beane, Billy told him the biggest philosophy change he's made is regarding the strikeout. Olney said a few years ago Beane would have loved a lineup full of Kingman's, but not so anymore.

I also caught him on ESPN News discussing the same topic, saying that watching this team and previous teams he's gained an appreciation for putting the ball in play and making so-called productive outs.

 

Has anyone read or heard anything similar?

Thoughts?

 

Dave Kingman had a career OBP of .305. So, no, Billy Beane NEVER would have "loved a lineup full of Kingman's."

 

Now, if you want to say he would have loved a lineup full of Bellhorns, Thomes, Chois, etc., I'll agree with you.