Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 10:41:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, some stats about Trout's K's last year.

78 strikeouts came with 0-1 outs, and nobody on base.
60 strikeouts came with 2 outs.
30 strikeouts came with a man on 1st with less than 2 outs. (I'd argue that I'd prefer a K to out(s) in play, if forced to choose)

So out of 184 strikeouts, there are 168 where the strikeout came in a situation where it wasn't "better" to have an out that was in play. This is where you get "strikeouts really don't matter too much."

If you change Trout's approach to avoid strikeouts, you might make him a worse player. He DOES want to make some the strikeouts into hits, which is nice, if it doesn't effect the rest of his game negatively.

EDIT: 2 of the 30 strikeouts with a man on 1st and less than 2 outs also had a man on 3rd.  So 166 out of 184, rather than 168 out of 184. 

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way to avoid the question.

Why do pitchers bunt instead of swinging away with less than two outs and runners on base?

What burns said. The pitcher bunts for the same reason that Trout doesn't: Possible upside of the at bat.

But all outs are equal, aren't they?  How can there be "possible upside"?

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):
It's more of an aside, and has nothing to do with Trout's comments, but I'm helping to show, using a specific player, why strikeouts overall aren't worse than outs in play.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):
It's more of an aside, and has nothing to do with Trout's comments, but I'm helping to show, using a specific player, why strikeouts overall aren't worse than outs in play.

You mean other than, 75% of the time, a ball in play would have been preferable to a whiff?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:00:00 AM (view original):
It's more of an aside, and has nothing to do with Trout's comments, but I'm helping to show, using a specific player, why strikeouts overall aren't worse than outs in play.

You mean other than, 75% of the time, a ball in play would have been preferable to a whiff?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way to avoid the question.

Why do pitchers bunt instead of swinging away with less than two outs and runners on base?

What burns said. The pitcher bunts for the same reason that Trout doesn't: Possible upside of the at bat.

But all outs are equal, aren't they?  How can there be "possible upside"?

Are you retarded?

The upside (or, in the case of the pitchers, lack of upside) of the at bat.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Ok. I'm not talking about balls in play. I was comparing outs to outs.

What are the other options to a strikeout?  

"might have been better than a strikeout"