Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Maybe you will, but you ensure that the player will also have about 0 extra base hits with 2 strikes.  Is that better?  And he'd probably lose hits on line drives he hit with 2 strikes that are now dribblers.  You have to account for the success the player actually had with 2 strikes.

OK, let's use 2013 Austin Jackson.     286 AB, 129 whiffs after getting two strikes.   41 singles, 7 doubles, 3 triples, 4 homers.   We'll turn all those xbh into singles.  55 hits.     Now, let's turn that 129 whiffs into 25 hits.     What's better?   The 80 singles or 41 singles, 7 doubles, 3 triples, 4 homers?

Again, I'd argue that he'd have less hits if all you're doing is ensuring contact on 129 whiffs.  And you're also assuming that the 55 hits he actually hit are still 55 hits, despite the fact that he's not trying to drive the ball anymore.  That's a poor assumption.

Damn.  That worked out perfect.   Total bases are still the same and the OBP goes thru the roof.    You don't have to answer.

Yes, the pitch where he hit a line drive single up the middle with 2 strikes is obviously still a hit where all he's doing is trying to not strike out.

You're feeding the troll.

I think he's done, so we're ok.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Yes, the pitch where he hit a line drive single up the middle with 2 strikes is obviously still a hit where all he's doing is trying to not strike out.

Why wouldn't it be?   A fat pitch is a fat pitch.   Do you think a professional baseball player can't recognize a 90 MPH fastball in the meat of the plate quick enough to crush it?

I like how the assumption is that professional baseball players will all swing the bat like eight year old girls if asked to try to make contact with a 2 strike count.

So, you want the batter to ensure contact on 2 strikes. But you also want the batter to go from that mindset to recognizing that the pitcher has thrown a pitch that he 100% will not miss if he swings hard (because that exists).  Do I have that right? You basically want the batter to only realize that he needs to make contact and put the ball in play on balls that he's about to strike out on, because he'll have the foresight to recognize that that's what's about to happen.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
I like how the assumption is that professional baseball players will all swing the bat like eight year old girls if asked to try to make contact with a 2 strike count.

Not "try." Guarantee. 0 strikeout scenario, tec.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
I like how the assumption is that professional baseball players will all swing the bat like eight year old girls if asked to try to make contact with a 2 strike count.

Not "try." Guarantee. 0 strikeout scenario, tec.

Why a 0 strikeout scenario?  Is that realistic?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 10:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 10:23:00 AM (view original):
I like how the assumption is that professional baseball players will all swing the bat like eight year old girls if asked to try to make contact with a 2 strike count.

Not "try." Guarantee. 0 strikeout scenario, tec.

Why a 0 strikeout scenario?  Is that realistic?

No, but it's the example Mike is using.  If he wants to argue "strike out a little less" we can talk about it.

There are guys who probably should do a better job of making contact.  Austin Jackson shouldn't be striking out as much as he does.  When I watch Yankee games, it astounds me the amount of times Brett Gardner strikes out.  His lack of contact in a lot of instances is silly.  But power hitters? They strike out a lot because it makes sense for them to swing hard and try to drive the ball.  To ask them to adjust their swing somewhat to simply make contact, in most instances, would not be bright.