Beane altering some philosphies?

[SwisherSweet]

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.

 

Interestingly, Kingman played for 4 teams in one year in 1977.

[DivineBovine]

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.

 

I just don't get CPatt's argument at all. Is a batter actually trying to make an out? Who says that? He's just NOT striking out while he does it. He's putting the ball in play, making the defense work, and trying to get hits. A K accomplishes nothing. A contact hitter isn't necessariy trying to hit a sac fly, but he's a hell of a lot more likely to hit one if he puts it in play rather than K's. He's still trying to get a hit when he hits it.

 

And I don't think it's rare that the situation comes up where a ball in play is much better than a K. I can't believe that people actually think the number is negligible.

[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?

 

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.

 

I didn't say that, that's what Olney said. He said "a lineup full of Kingman's who hit a lot of home runs and wouldn't care if they struck out a lot."

[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?

 

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.

 

I just don't get CPatt's argument at all. Is a batter actually trying to make an out? Who says that? He's just NOT striking out while he does it. He's putting the ball in play, making the defense work, and trying to get hits. A K accomplishes nothing. A contact hitter isn't necessariy trying to hit a sac fly, but he's a hell of a lot more likely to hit one if he puts it in play rather than K's. He's still trying to get a hit when he hits it.

 

And I don't think it's rare that the situation comes up where a ball in play is much better than a K. I can't believe that people actually think the number is negligible.

 

I'm saying that in the effort to avoid a K, a hitter lowers the likelihood of hitting well(i.e. extra base hits). I'll take some K's with some doubles and HR's over fewer K's with some sacrifice flies, sacrifice groundouts, and some singles.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

I don't think people are "feeling betrayed". They are interested though because many regard Beane as a smart guy, and are interested to find out more when his philosophies differ from their own, or he changes course on an issue.

[dnana86]

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.

 

Olney QUOTES Beane as saying:

 

When I started, I would've taken nine Dave Kingmans -- lots of home runs and lots of strikeouts, as long as they draw some walks," Beane said

 

So, yes, Beane did say that. So, instead of accusing Olney of falsifying quotes, maybe you should keep an open mind.

[cubbieinexile]

Well actually Beane added a caveat and Olney left it out.

 

Beane did not say he would take 9 Kingman's. He said he would take 9 Kingman's that also walked/ Considering that Kingman did not do this then I would say that Beane would not want 9 Kingmen.

[CoolHandLuke]

I bet a team with nine Dave Kingmans in his best year ('79) would score a TON of runs.

[cubbieinexile]

RC says a team of 9 Dave Kingmans would score about 7.5 runs a game. Personally I don't buy that. I think it would be less because of the double plays and in all probability less walks.

[cubbieinexile]

I got curious so I ran it through a simulator and a 1979 lineup of 9 Kingmans would score 1152 runs against 1979 competition. Good for 7.1 runs a game. Of course that is with the IBB which be almost certainly down close to zero. About the only time an IBB would be allowed is to provide a force at every base.

[cubbieinexile]

Taking away the intentional walk and the Kingmans fall to 7 runs a game.

[mul21]

The thing that should be valued is a player's ability to read a situation and adjust accordingly. If there are guys on 1st and 2nd and nobody out and I'm down 2-3 runs, I want my power hitter swinging for the fences. If it's the 8th inning and it's tied or down 1 with a guy at 3rd base and less than two out, yeah, cut down your swing, put the ball in play and get the run home.

[Lefty]

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.

 

Actually the argument does make some sense because you can't know before the fact whether you will have a productive out or a DP. Now if you know your hitters' tendencies to pull or go the other way, or groundball vs. flyball, you can try to figure it out. But at that point you're not guessing anymore. The A's are always looking to use new information. That's what makes them different.

 

Your plan to build a winner by hitting into force outs is very novel.

[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.

 

Actually the argument does make some sense because you can't know before the fact whether you will have a productive out or a DP. Now if you know your hitters' tendencies to pull or go the other way, or groundball vs. flyball, you can try to figure it out. But at that point you're not guessing anymore. The A's are always looking to use new information. That's what makes them different.

 

Your plan to build a winner by hitting into force outs is very novel.

 

I never said that was a plan. I said give me a bunch of speedy, contact guys.

 

At least with a ground ball, you put it into play. If you have a guy fast enough (like Patterson), odds are they can leg out those slow rollers to short or third. You can't outrun a strikeout.

 

you should try to force the defense to get you out. And if you put the ball into play, if you put it in the right place, at least something came out of your out, instead of nothing.

[sonofsamiam]

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Beane's overarching philosophy hasn't changed at all. Moneyball was about making the most with your money by identifying undervalued qualities in players while making personnel decisions. Now that OBP has gone more mainstream (in large part due to Moneyball) and that high-OBP players are likely to make more money, I'm sure Beane has turned his attention elsewhere to maximize his dollar. It's always about staying ahead of the curve.

[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.

 

Actually the argument does make some sense because you can't know before the fact whether you will have a productive out or a DP. Now if you know your hitters' tendencies to pull or go the other way, or groundball vs. flyball, you can try to figure it out. But at that point you're not guessing anymore. The A's are always looking to use new information. That's what makes them different.

 

Your plan to build a winner by hitting into force outs is very novel.

 

I never said that was a plan. I said give me a bunch of speedy, contact guys.

 

At least with a ground ball, you put it into play. If you have a guy fast enough (like Patterson), odds are they can leg out those slow rollers to short or third. You can't outrun a strikeout.

 

you should try to force the defense to get you out. And if you put the ball into play, if you put it in the right place, at least something came out of your out, instead of nothing.

 

I thought of this last night, let me see if this better helps illustrate what I'm talking about.

 

Here is the spectrum of possiblities when you let a hitter swing away:

 

[---Strikeout---Out---Productive Out---Single---Extra base hit---Home Run---]

 

 

Here is the spectrum of possibilities when a player cuts down on their swing to make contact in an effort to avoid K's:

 

[---Out---Productive Out---Single---]

 

 

This is slightly exaggerated, but it illustrates the point. By trying to cut down on K's, or just put the ball in play, you reduce the likelihood of the most successful of outcomes.

[cubbieinexile]

Depends on the player and of course each choice is not equally weighted.

 

For instance if I am Ozzie Smith and I swing away my strat-o-matic card might look something like this:

 

Pop out

Pop out

Fly Out

Fly out

Single

Double

Triple

Strikeout

Strikeout

Strikeout

Pop out

Pop out

Fly Out

Fly out

Single

Single

Strikeout

Strikeout

Strikeout

Pop out

Pop out

Fly Out

Fly out

Home Run

Ground out

Ground out

Fly out

 

Now by cutting down on my swing it might look like this

ground out

ground out

single

single

Pop out

Double

Double

Fly out

Strikeout

Single

Single

Pop out

ground out

ground out

Single

Single

ground out

pop out

ground out

ground out

fly out

ground out

ground out

ground out

[TheDude]

I thought of this last night, let me see if this better helps illustrate what I'm talking about.

 

Here is the spectrum of possiblities when you let a hitter swing away:

 

[---Strikeout---Out---Productive Out---Single---Extra base hit---Home Run---]

 

 

Here is the spectrum of possibilities when a player cuts down on their swing to make contact in an effort to avoid K's:

 

[---Out---Productive Out---Single---]

 

 

This is slightly exaggerated, but it illustrates the point. By trying to cut down on K's, or just put the ball in play, you reduce the likelihood of the most successful of outcomes.

I am going to disagree with you and say this is vastly oversimplified and thus incorrect.

 

You must consider the player in question. There are plenty of hitters, some power hitters included, that can still clear the fence with a cut-down swing. Homeruns that come as a result of bat speed more than power. A high percentage contact hitter can easily hit a gapper with a cut-down swing. Power hitters that are also BA-minded can increase bat speed instead of increasing bat power.

 

To say the options for a cut-down swing are Out-PO-Single is just wrong.

 

I'm glad to see Beane adjusting. The biggest issue I have always had with his approach was the lack of situational application. Good managers and baseball thinkers will recognize that building a team capable of playing different styles of baseball against various opponents and situations is what wins ballgames. Box thinking or 'all the eggs' will not win championships.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I thought of this last night, let me see if this better helps illustrate what I'm talking about.

 

Here is the spectrum of possiblities when you let a hitter swing away:

 

[---Strikeout---Out---Productive Out---Single---Extra base hit---Home Run---]

 

 

Here is the spectrum of possibilities when a player cuts down on their swing to make contact in an effort to avoid K's:

 

[---Out---Productive Out---Single---]

 

 

This is slightly exaggerated, but it illustrates the point. By trying to cut down on K's, or just put the ball in play, you reduce the likelihood of the most successful of outcomes.

I am going to disagree with you and say this is vastly oversimplified and thus incorrect.

 

You must consider the player in question. There are plenty of hitters, some power hitters included, that can still clear the fence with a cut-down swing. Homeruns that come as a result of bat speed more than power. A high percentage contact hitter can easily hit a gapper with a cut-down swing. Power hitters that are also BA-minded can increase bat speed instead of increasing bat power.

 

To say the options for a cut-down swing are Out-PO-Single is just wrong.

 

I'm glad to see Beane adjusting. The biggest issue I have always had with his approach was the lack of situational application. Good managers and baseball thinkers will recognize that building a team capable of playing different styles of baseball against various opponents and situations is what wins ballgames. Box thinking or 'all the eggs' will not win championships.

 

The idea is that you lower the likelihood of the worst thing happening, but also the likelihood of the best thing happening. My point is that a K is not that much worse than other outs that it's worth sacrificing the possibility of the best possible outcomes.

[TheDude]

The idea is that you lower the likelihood of the worst thing happening, but also the likelihood of the best thing happening. My point is that a K is not that much worse than other outs that it's worth sacrificing the possibility of the best possible outcomes.

I understand what you mean, but do not believe it applies to all, or even most players and/or situations. This is where the OBP/power game philosophy has holes IMO.

 

Situation by situation, and depending on the hitter's talents, you play either smallball or powerball. Trying to force one or other as a hard rule will not work (or at leats won't get a team a ring).

 

If I seem a little more critical of powerball more than smallball, it is only because there are so many anti-smallball folks on this board among the regulars who won't acknowledge its relevence even slightly. But there are plenty of times I roll my eyes at Dusty Baker for trying to force smallball on a player inappropriate to accomplish the task. That is just as bad as ignoring a ball-in-play situation when it's needed.

 

Plus, my last point about a K vs. ball-in-play is that funny things happen in baseball. Errors, odd moments, ball lost in the sun, etc. A strikeout can only create one such odd result, on a wild pitch. But a ball-in-play can create countless situations that will not show up as a hit or OBP stat in a boxscore.

[cubbieinexile]

I am going to disagree with you and say this is vastly oversimplified and thus incorrect.

 

You must consider the player in question. There are plenty of hitters, some power hitters included, that can still clear the fence with a cut-down swing. Homeruns that come as a result of bat speed more than power. A high percentage contact hitter can easily hit a gapper with a cut-down swing. Power hitters that are also BA-minded can increase bat speed instead of increasing bat power.

 

 

And how many BA-minded power hitters are there, and how many of them strike out too much?

[TheDude]

I am going to disagree with you and say this is vastly oversimplified and thus incorrect.

 

You must consider the player in question. There are plenty of hitters, some power hitters included, that can still clear the fence with a cut-down swing. Homeruns that come as a result of bat speed more than power. A high percentage contact hitter can easily hit a gapper with a cut-down swing. Power hitters that are also BA-minded can increase bat speed instead of increasing bat power.

 

 

And how many BA-minded power hitters are there, and how many of them strike out too much?

It really depends on what you or I define as power hitter. I imagine you are thinking much higher numbers of HR than I am.

 

IMO, any player averaging 15+ HR a season can be defined as a power hitter, in the sense that, in any given situation during the game, the other team's manager has to respect the player is capable of hitting the ball out of the park in that situation. There are plenty of guys in the league capable of hitting .280+ with 15+ HR as a season stat line.

[Satch80]

If Moneyball is about finding whatever is undervalued then Moneyball has no absolute philosophy about how to build a ball club.

 

One year OBP is undervalued so we load up on guys with disciplined strike zones.

 

One year defense is undervalued so we sign gold glove caliber players with only average plate discipline.

 

One year speed is undervalued so we get some guys who can steal and hit and run but are only average defensively.

 

My point is we are arguing about what is ideal when there is no ideal if one builds a team dependent upon the best available skills at reduced prices.

Basically, that's Moneyball.

[Lefty]

 

I thought of this last night, let me see if this better helps illustrate what I'm talking about.

 

Here is the spectrum of possiblities when you let a hitter swing away:

 

[---Strikeout---Out---Productive Out---Single---Extra base hit---Home Run---]

 

 

Here is the spectrum of possibilities when a player cuts down on their swing to make contact in an effort to avoid K's:

 

[---Out---Productive Out---Single---]

 

 

This is slightly exaggerated, but it illustrates the point. By trying to cut down on K's, or just put the ball in play, you reduce the likelihood of the most successful of outcomes.

 

Exactly. It's not like you can choose to have a productive out or not. You choose an approach which leads to a range of outcomes with differing probabilities. I'd love to have an Adam Dunn who struck out only 100 times, still drew 100 walks, hit .320 and hit into 15-20 DPs (so would the Reds). But that's not the choice.