David

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first? I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully. I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples. Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base. But I just gave a counterexample where a batter can reach base on a strikeout. That said, I have no preference between making contact or a strikeout. I'm more concerned with the approach the hitter is taking. If it's the right approach, the outcome means little to me, because, over time, the right process is the best way of ensuring consistently achieving the right outcome. If more strikeouts come as a result of the right approach, so be it. Outside of the most extreme specific cases, I don't want any hitter up there making contact for the sake of making contact. Ever.

I'd rather my hitter go up with the right approach, wait for a pitch to hit hard somewhere, and not swing if he doesn't get it. If he walks, he walks. If he hits it, it's up to the BABIP gods, and if he strikes out, he strikes out. It's about the approach. You can't just say, "Oh, I'd rather have contact in this situation than a strikeout." Doesn't work that way. In my mind, that's not even the argument. There are obviously very specific situations where there is a definite advantage to making contact over striking out (i.e. home team, bot 9th, down one or, better yet, tied with a runner at 3rd and less than two outs). That's not the point, though. The hitter just needs to have the right approach, everything else takes care of itself. I think of offensive baseball strategy a lot like I think of poker. It may not be the best analogy, but my thought is 99% (not literally, but you get the idea) of the time, just play the percentages, take your pots over the long haul. That 1% where you've caught a fish and have him read perfectly, bluff and go ahead and reel him in.

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote: "So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter." A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote. Very good example of what I'm trying to say here.

I understand that this is by far the prevailing thinking. I'm just saying that it's completely wrong (and incredibly frustrating when I hear people harp on it). "Sosa was so overrated. All that guy ever did was strikeout or hit home runs." :evil:

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first? I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully.

Making outs is what keeps you from scoring. A double-play is terribly undermining when it comes to scoring runs. They effectively cripple a team's chances of scoring in a given inning. I'm almost positive that more than a few studies have shown that the possible advantage of advancing a runner on contact is counter-balanced by the possibility of hitting into some form of a double-play. In other words, the perceived disadvantage of a strikeout in that you can't advance a runner is balanced out by the advantage of the fact that there's no possibility for a catastrophic (in terms of scoring runs) double-play. In short, over the long haul, an out is an out is an out.

Beat me to it.

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

You're standards are low though. If you have a rotation of the league average ERA at every spot, you don't have a good rotation and likely will not be in the playoffs. My standards are not low. My definition of a #2 starter is what would be determined to be a #2 starter based on the league's talent pool. That doesn't mean I don't want 5 #1's on my team.

To further emphasize the point of how insignificant the K total is compared to the OBP, I'd take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200K's over a guy with a .380 (just throwing a number out there) OBP and 100K's.

Whoops, my bad. That was me. Haha, actually, I think it started with Caryatid's post. But it's ok, I like his band.

LOL I love how one screwed up Quote "code" is attributing a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say. Keep putting words in my mouth guys. :)

I'm curious as to whether you've got anything to back this with? Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm honestly curious. I've heard differently...that for the most part, the positive effect of an advanced runner on contact is, on the whole, balanced out by the negative impact of a DP. EDIT - for clarity

In other words, according to this season's stats (so far), a 3.80 ERA would, on average, be about what you'd expect from a #2 starter (1.34 pitchers per team w/better ERAs), correct?

I wish some (a lot of) people would stop overstating the importance of limiting strikeouts on offense. (And even conversely, of getting strikeouts as a pitcher). It's just not that big, and is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to conventional baseball wisdom. An out is an out. Sure, you can't advance a runner on it, but, assuming nobody is trying to steal, you also can't force an existing baserunner out on one. It also has very little to do with plate discipline, IMHO. In fact, patient hitters will inherently strike out more. Can we please stop talking about strikeouts when deriding a hitter? There are plenty of better things to look at.

The point is that if you go by the average major league pitcher (not these extremes that you want to take it to), Prior over the last two years is definitely better than a 3 or 4. EDIT - This reply was directed at srbin84, not Is Pedro There.

Right, because that's exactly what I meant to imply. After a very strong outting from Prior last night, I expected to come here and read positive things about it. Instead, I read three pages of mainly negative posts about the situation. One of the best pitchers in baseball is either ready or almost ready to join our rotation... that's a big deal and something to get excited about, especially considering that the Cubs haven't given us a whole lot to get excited about this year. I just expected a more positive attitude I guess. Well, he had one good season and has pitched like a No. 3/4 starter since then, when he pitches. I don't think a lot of people are expecting to get one of the best pitchers in baseball. In what world is Prior's 3.67 ERA (quoting you) of 2005 the stuff of a 3/4 starter (without even mentioning the fact that he pitched more half the season after taking a line drive to the elbow)?

Hendry has done and will do A LOT worse things than relying on Mark Prior to be something more than a #5 next year.

Consistently around 90-91, hitting 92 at times.

Those stupid someone-hater terms agrivate me. It is just a way of grouping those whom one disagrees with together into a group. Furthermore, WHO hates prior here? There were those who were skeptical, but no one hated him. OF COURSE they were skeptical, his velocity was not to be found in his first start. /rant I usually agree with you, roast. But I have to say, there are definitely some Prior "haters" on this board. The ones who like to call him a pansy, wuss, etc. (Some even pinning steroid accusations on him). So texascub, I'm right there with you, man.

Prior and Wood have both publicly expressed frustration with their constant need for rehab, and I have no doubts that your post is the complete opposite of the truth. Agreed. I'm so tired of reading/hearing comments like the one you're replyng to. People act as if theses guys *want* to be in the position they're in. RRRRRIIGHT.. :roll:

2006....

except for our pitchers - they aren't allowed to be sore. Only Prior, who's a big baby and can't tell the difference b/t pain and soreness. In most cases, I'd think this post was sarcastic. Sadly, I get the feeling that it isn't in this case. :roll:

Oof, thats when you know your team stinks, when your middle reliever is your lone all star. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I'd want Barrett behind the plate catching to decide who gets HFA in the World Series :-k :-k :?:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8655/pujcurse7ss.jpg Saw this on a Cards forum... The SI curse strikes again. Funny how it never affected MJ.