Posted by dahsdebater on 5/14/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/14/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Many more situations where a non strikeout out is more beneficial than a strikeout. Many more. Start with Sac Flies.

Sac flies aren't scored as outs in the box score, so they don't reflect on a hitter's stats, and really aren't relevant to the conversation.  You don't have to look at these 2 hypothetical .500 sluggers and assume the 100K guy would have more sac flies.  That's a recorded stat.  You can just look at their stat page on any number of websites or even one of the few remaining ink and paper publications on the subject.  Same with sac hits.  You can have a guy who strikes out a ton but changes approach in RBI situations.  Last year Chris Davis had a meaningfully decreased K-rate and an improved contact rate with RISP.  Cabrera does that nearly every year.  But Davis is worth bringing up because he still managed to strike out 199 times.  And had 7 sac flies.  Cabrera, still a good contact hitter with less overall Ks, had 2.  Of the 7 guys with 10+ sac flies last season, 5 of them had at least 100 Ks.

More than 75% of the time, making contact is virtually meaningless in and of itself.  Guys who strike out at a high rate 75% of the time still end up with a ton of Ks, but it says nothing about their approach.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 10:42:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think it's 25% of the time. 

There's less than 2% of a chance that your opponent will make an error.
I can't imagine a team having more than 1 sac fly/hit per game with any regularity. 
Add in 1-2 times where a runner is moved but a sac is not credited. 

Seems to me that a ball in play, at best, would be beneficial 3-4 times a game. 
Take at least one of those away for hitting into a DP(wouldn't happen with a whiff).

10-12% of the time it's better to put it in play and we really don't know how that affects a guy "taking something off his swing" all the time in order to make contact but, IMO, that has to be worth something.  5-7% of the time it's better to make contact?   Not insignificant but certainly not 13-14 combined outs.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/14/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/14/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Many more situations where a non strikeout out is more beneficial than a strikeout. Many more. Start with Sac Flies.

Eh, there might be more individual situations, but they don't come up more often. And the run scoring benefit of say, moving a guy to third by making the second out, is still really low. 

This link gives you the average runs scored per base/out state, the chances of scoring a run in each base out state, and the frequency of plate appearances in each base/out state.

73% of the time, there is either no one on or two outs in the inning. No benefit to making an out in play vs a strikeout.

6.4% of the time, there is a runner on 2nd or a runner on third or runners on 2nd and 3rd with less than two outs. There is a benefit here to an out in play, assuming it isn't a pop up, come backer to the pitcher, a hard hit ball to the third baseman, or a shallow fly ball. I'll come back to the exact benefit of moving the runner in a minute.

19.1% of the time, there is a runner on first and less than two outs (includes runners on 1st & 2nd, 1st & 3rd, bases loaded). In this situation, a ground ball out is a disaster. 

Let's go from the third to the first table in the link, the average number of runs scored by base/out state. Side note: most of the time, teams aren't playing for one run, so the average number is better to use than the odds of scoring one, but feel free to do some analysis of the second table.

When a situation starts with no one out and no one on, teams score, on average, about half a run (.544) that inning. When that changes to one out, no one on, teams score, on average, .291 runs from then until the end of the inning. That first out reduces the average run scoring in this situation by .253 regardless of how it is made.

Looking at the exact situation you brought up earlier, Man on 2nd, one out. The average number of runs scored in this situation is .721, pretty good. Your chance of scoring one run is almost 42%. So you do what you're "supposed" to do and hit a ground ball to second, making the second out while moving the runner to third. With a runner on third and two out, the run scoring average goes down to .385. Had you struck out, your team is worse off, but not by much. With runner on 2nd two out, the run scoring average is .348.

I wouldn't want my hitters shortening up in that situation and trying for a ground ball out. The benefit is small. I'd much rather risk a strikeout and that small benefit and have them take a real swing and have a chance at an extra base hit.

Posted by The Taint on 5/14/2014 11:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 10:42:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think it's 25% of the time. 

There's less than 2% of a chance that your opponent will make an error.
I can't imagine a team having more than 1 sac fly/hit per game with any regularity. 
Add in 1-2 times where a runner is moved but a sac is not credited. 

Seems to me that a ball in play, at best, would be beneficial 3-4 times a game. 
Take at least one of those away for hitting into a DP(wouldn't happen with a whiff).

10-12% of the time it's better to put it in play and we really don't know how that affects a guy "taking something off his swing" all the time in order to make contact but, IMO, that has to be worth something.  5-7% of the time it's better to make contact?   Not insignificant but certainly not 13-14 combined outs.

I see strike em out, throw em out double plays with some regularity.

Depends on who "we" is.    But I can be included in the "we".     30ish runs per year seems like a few wins to me.    And a few wins per year might make the difference between ending your season in Sept or Oct. 

 

Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 1:36:00 AM (view original):
Looking at the exact situation you brought up earlier, Man on 2nd, one out. The average number of runs scored in this situation is .721, pretty good. Your chance of scoring one run is almost 42%. So you do what you're "supposed" to do and hit a ground ball to second, making the second out while moving the runner to third. With a runner on third and two out, the run scoring average goes down to .385. Had you struck out, your team is worse off, but not by much. With runner on 2nd two out, the run scoring average is .348.

There's never been any coach in the world asking their players to ground out to the right side(making the second out) to move the runner over to third. Ever.  I said that if you were going to make the second out, you are better off moving the guy to third with a grounder than striking out, your odds are better at scoring.  I see your percentages agree with me.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):
I think we can agree that "all outs are equal, so it doesn't matter how they're made" is a pretty dumb statement.