Mike Trout Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
For ****'s sake.

It's not what they do when they strike out.     It's what they do when they don't.   By NOT striking out, they allow themselves an opportunity to do something positive.  

Teams gets 6400 PA, more or less.  A team that whiffs 1200 times has a 5% less chance of doing something worthwhile than a team that whiffs 900 times.
3/3/2015 4:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And that's not to say the 1200 K team can't score more runs.  They may be far more efficient in other aspects of the game.
3/3/2015 5:01 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

And, no, I'm not arguing that "out is an out" BS.    Putting the ball in play, and making an out, is better but arguing how much better is pointless.  Best way I can explain it would be drinking with a buddy, getting a $65 tab, deciding to split it and pulling two ones and two quarters out your pocket to make $32.50.

 

3/3/2015 5:15 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 4:58:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake.

It's not what they do when they strike out.     It's what they do when they don't.   By NOT striking out, they allow themselves an opportunity to do something positive.  

Teams gets 6400 PA, more or less.  A team that whiffs 1200 times has a 5% less chance of doing something worthwhile than a team that whiffs 900 times.
All teams make about the same amount of offensive outs. How you split those outs up (GB/FB/K) really doesn't matter.
3/3/2015 5:18 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
So teams should just go and strikeout?
3/3/2015 5:58 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):
So teams should just go and strikeout?
As opposed to trying to get a hit?
3/3/2015 6:00 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
No, as opposed to making outs in play.
3/3/2015 6:04 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I don't understand your question. Are you asking why don't players just strike out on purpose instead of making outs in play? Because not all balls in play are outs.
3/3/2015 6:10 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't even care what sort of dumbassery is behind that block.    But here's the basic math.

BABIP bottoms out around .270 on a team basis.    I'll drop it to .250 because I can.    A team that strikes out 900 times, as opposed to 1200, with get 75 more hits.   Teams might hit into DP 2% of the time.   But, **** it, let's say 5% of the time.   Team Low K will hit in to 15 more DP.  They still have 210 more outs to make.   Let's say 2% of the time they make one of tec's productive outs(low but we're doing worst case).   That's 4 productive outs and 206 that were exactly the same as a whiff.

68% of the time, nothing changed.
5% of the time, it was a "disaster".
27% of the time, it was better than whiffing.

Wouldn't most teams takes that?
3/3/2015 6:16 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I'm positive all teams would take more balls in play (assuming the same BABIP/power/etc).

Over the course of a season, the balls in play that become outs are no better than strikeouts.
3/3/2015 6:25 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2015 6:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2015 3:07:00 PM (view original):
You have to admit, it does seem sort of disingenuous to say that strikeouts are important for run scoring but then say you can't compare Ks and run scoring on a team level.

If you want to deal with the biggest non-random problem with that analysis, divide every team's runs scored by [(park factor + 1)/2] and then correlate to Ks.
How do you account for the difference in player's abilities in the lineups for two different teams?

I mentioned the '96 Mariners a few pages ago.  ARod, Griffey and Edgar.  Even Jay Buhner had a big year for them in '96.

Did all other 27 teams in MLB in '96 have 3 or 4 players of their caliber in their lineup that year?

How do you account for differences in players abilities between two different seasons?  Do you think the power hitters in the game right now are equivalent in talent to the chemically enhanced-behemoths of the late '90s (Sosa, McGwire, Griffey, Bonds, etc.)?  I'd say it's pretty clear the answer is no.

Again, as I said before, anybody who knows anything about statistics recognizes that in most samples there are unavoidable and uncontrollable variables.  This is why people seek large samples.  You have a sample size of 20 with uncontrolled variables.  Working by seasons gives 30x the sample size (slightly under, since you started in years before the most recent expansions, but close to 30x).

What are the "uncontrolled variables" in my samples?
3/3/2015 8:57 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2015 6:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Season IP Runs Ks R/9 K/9 Corr - 2014
1990 37,563.7 17,919 23,853 4.29 5.72 -0.20
1991 37,769.7 18,127 24,390 4.32 5.81 -0.31
1992 37,829.7 17,341 23,538 4.13 5.60 -0.43
1993 40,507.0 20,864 26,310 4.64 5.85 -0.75
1994 28,586.3 15,752 19,766 4.96 6.22 -0.86
1995 36,032.0 19,554 25,425 4.88 6.35 -0.86
1996 40,560.7 22,831 29,308 5.07 6.50 -0.86
1997 40,454.0 21,604 29,937 4.81 6.66 -0.85
1998 43,434.7 23,297 31,893 4.83 6.61 -0.85
1999 43,211.3 24,691 31,119 5.14 6.48 -0.85
2000 43,244.3 24,971 31,356 5.20 6.53 -0.85
2001 43,287.3 23,199 32,404 4.82 6.74 -0.88
2002 43,269.0 22,408 31,394 4.66 6.53 -0.89
2003 43,335.3 22,978 30,801 4.77 6.40 -0.89
2004 43,394.0 23,376 31,828 4.85 6.60 -0.89
2005 43,232.3 22,325 30,644 4.65 6.38 -0.88
2006 43,258.0 23,599 31,655 4.91 6.59 -0.94
2007 43,425.7 23,322 32,189 4.83 6.67 -0.92
2008 43,357.7 22,585 32,884 4.69 6.83 -0.89
2008 43,272.0 22,419 33,591 4.66 6.99 -0.83
2010 43,305.3 21,308 34,306 4.43 7.13 -0.74
2011 43,527.3 20,808 34,488 4.30 7.13 -0.58
2012 43,355.3 21,017 36,426 4.36 7.56 -0.79
2013 43,653.3 20,255 36,710 4.18 7.57 -1.00
2014 43,613.7 19,761 37,441 4.08 7.73  
This.

What are the coefficients from 1994 and later?

Are they also "beyond weak"?
So your argument now is that something magically changed about baseball in 1994 that made strikeouts extremely significant to run scoring, but that baseball was fundamentally different before that season and strikeouts didn't correlate to run scoring?

I think I'm going to need some sort of coherent explanation for why this should be true.  Generally speaking, seemingly absurdist theories need some kind of rationalization before people consider buying into them.
The numbers are what they are.  Perhaps if I went further back than just 1990, we would have seen more consistency.  Perhaps the 1990-1993 samples were anomalies.

Why don't you give me some sort of "coherent explanation" why the post-1994 data presented should be ignored, despite it's consistency.
3/3/2015 9:01 PM
seamar_116
Posts: 3653 (0)
Hall of Famer
304
Hall of Famer
Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I'm positive all teams would take more balls in play (assuming the same BABIP/power/etc).

Over the course of a season, the balls in play that become outs are no better than strikeouts.
False....BIP that became outs that score or advance runners ARE better than Ks
3/3/2015 9:09 PM
◂ Prev 1...33|34|35|36|37...65 Next ▸
Mike Trout Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.