All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > MLB: a bag of a**holes.
5/15/2014 12:15 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
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.
All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.
Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's

Hey genius, home runs aren't "in play."


You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, 

Nope, I'm saying that once that ball in play becomes an out, it wasn't any better than a strikeout. Obviously, hitters should try to hit the ball and hits are better than outs.

5/15/2014 12:16 PM
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):
But your graph shows that you are wrong, even if the percentage is small.
No, the run expectancy shows that there is a slight gain in some situations. And a loss in others.
5/15/2014 12:22 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
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.
All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.
Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

"Oh no.  If I hit the ball, it's gonna be a complete disaster.  May as well strikeout."

5/15/2014 12:24 PM

For example....according to your graph:

1st and 2nd, no outs:  .643 chance to score.  Batter K's  1st and 2nd, 1 out:  .429 chance to score  Batter SH: 2nd and third, 1 out:  .698 chance to score


Big difference in the type of out?
 

5/15/2014 12:30 PM
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):

For example....according to your graph:

1st and 2nd, no outs:  .643 chance to score.  Batter K's  1st and 2nd, 1 out:  .429 chance to score  Batter SH: 2nd and third, 1 out:  .698 chance to score


Big difference in the type of out?
 

You went from a 64.3% chance of scoring one run to a 69.8% chance of scoring one run. That's a relatively small increase.

If you K, it goes down to 42.9%, a big decrease. If you hit a hard grounder to short instead of a whatever SH moves them over, your chance of scoring one run goes down to 27%. An even bigger decrease.
 
5/15/2014 12:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
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.
All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.
Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's

Hey genius, home runs aren't "in play."


You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, 

Nope, I'm saying that once that ball in play becomes an out, it wasn't any better than a strikeout. Obviously, hitters should try to hit the ball and hits are better than outs.

Inside the park HRs are certainly "in play".  Genius.

And I'll contend that the definition of BABIP is fundamentally flawed by excluding home runs.  It's supposed to represent the result of an AB when the batter does not strikeout, sac bunt, walk, or get HBP.  In other words, what happens when he hits the ball.  It's retarded that HRs are excluded from the definition, because HRs are certainly one of the products of hitting the ball.


5/15/2014 12:41 PM
By definition, the IP stands for "in play".    HR aren't "in play".    The designers of BABIP were trying to exclude luck in fielding, I assume, and there is no fielding luck involved in HR.    So I don't know that it's flawed by excluding HR.   It's just not relevant to "whiff vs. other outs" discussions. 
5/15/2014 12:41 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/15/2014 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
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.
All outs aren't perfectly equal, as we see with the run matrix. 75% of the time, all outs are exactly the same. 6% of the time, a productive out nets you a slight gain in run scoring. 19% of the time, an out in play is either neutral or a complete disaster.

If you understand baseball, you know that hitters don't get to pick and choose when and how they make their outs. Guys who avoid strikeouts and make a lot of outs in play also hit into a lot of double plays.

We can also look at it on the team level and see that there is absolutely zero correlation between run scoring and strikeout totals.
Hitters also don't get to pick and choose what happens when they put a ball in play.  BABIP says they get a hit around 30% of time time.  Actually, a little higher than that, since BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's.  Add another roughly 2% of the time, there will be an error. 

So let's say 33% of the time, something positive happens offensively when a ball is put in play.

What percentage of the time does something positive happen offensively when a batter strikes out?

You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, since an out on a BIP with a runner on first could be "a complete disaster".  Unless Nostradamus, Jean Dixon or the Amazing Kreskin is in your lineup, that's probably not a good premise to base an argument on.

BABIP inexplicably excludes HR's

Hey genius, home runs aren't "in play."


You seem to be arguing on the premise that if a hitter KNOWS that putting a ball in play will result in an out, he might as well just strikeout, 

Nope, I'm saying that once that ball in play becomes an out, it wasn't any better than a strikeout. Obviously, hitters should try to hit the ball and hits are better than outs.

Inside the park HRs are certainly "in play".  Genius.

And I'll contend that the definition of BABIP is fundamentally flawed by excluding home runs.  It's supposed to represent the result of an AB when the batter does not strikeout, sac bunt, walk, or get HBP.  In other words, what happens when he hits the ball.  It's retarded that HRs are excluded from the definition, because HRs are certainly one of the products of hitting the ball.


Haha. Obviously you were talking about inside the park home runs in your overview of hit frequencies. Since, you know, they happen so often.

You can contend that, biz, but you're wrong. BABIP measures hits on balls in play. Home runs aren't in play.
5/15/2014 12:43 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):

For example....according to your graph:

1st and 2nd, no outs:  .643 chance to score.  Batter K's  1st and 2nd, 1 out:  .429 chance to score  Batter SH: 2nd and third, 1 out:  .698 chance to score


Big difference in the type of out?
 

You went from a 64.3% chance of scoring one run to a 69.8% chance of scoring one run. That's a relatively small increase.

If you K, it goes down to 42.9%, a big decrease. If you hit a hard grounder to short instead of a whatever SH moves them over, your chance of scoring one run goes down to 27%. An even bigger decrease.
 
Your scenario of grounding into a double play there, happens less than one time per game. In fact it's more like .75 times per game
5/15/2014 12:51 PM (edited)
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:24:00 PM (view original):

For example....according to your graph:

1st and 2nd, no outs:  .643 chance to score.  Batter K's  1st and 2nd, 1 out:  .429 chance to score  Batter SH: 2nd and third, 1 out:  .698 chance to score


Big difference in the type of out?
 

You went from a 64.3% chance of scoring one run to a 69.8% chance of scoring one run. That's a relatively small increase.

If you K, it goes down to 42.9%, a big decrease. If you hit a hard grounder to short instead of a whatever SH moves them over, your chance of scoring one run goes down to 27%. An even bigger decrease.
 
Your scenario of grounding into a double play there, happens less than one time per game. In fact it's more like .75 times per game
Productive out situations occur in only 6% of all plate appearances.

Situations where a there's no one out and a double play can happen occur in 19% of all plate appearances.
5/15/2014 12:51 PM
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then
5/15/2014 12:52 PM
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then
Bunting?
5/15/2014 12:57 PM (edited)
I just realized that graph is old data also. Strikeout rates are going up considerably since 2010. You have anything that's a little more current?
5/15/2014 12:59 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then
Bunting?
Yes, depending on the situation of course. You don't want Joey Votro bunting with men on first and second
5/15/2014 1:02 PM
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/15/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/15/2014 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Maybe teams should start using the sacrifice hit more then
Bunting?
Yes, depending on the situation of course. You don't want Joey Votro bunting with men on first and second
That makes no sense whatsoever. Other than the pitcher, you don't want players sac bunting. I understand the "you didn't get a hit but at least you moved the runner" mindset. There you tried to get a hit and this is the next best thing. Completely giving up on a chance to hit? Foolishness.
of 49
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > MLB: a bag of a**holes.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.