Yea, he looks like a guy who could change his approach a touch.  That's fair.  He obviously is swinging and missing at a lot of pitches.

The other thing in this situation to consider though - knowing that he needs to cut down on Ks, he may stop going deeper into counts and put the ball in play quicker.  There are a decent amount of guys who strike out AND get on base by walking quite a bit, these are guys who are working counts and waiting for "their pitch."  The 2-1 pitch on the black may be something Curtis would swing at now, not making great contact, where before, maybe he would have taken it.

It's probably not the best example. I did mention what seems like forever ago in this thread that guys seem to not be situational hitting as well as they used to, and used Granderson as an example.  

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):
It's better to put the ball in play than to strike out.  It's also better to hit the ball hard than to bunt the ball back to the pitcher.  There are different "levels" to putting the ball in play.

Why does every struck ball, with two strikes, have to be a dribbler to the pitcher?   We're talking about 400ish of the best baseball players in the world.

I think the assumption is that a "just making contact with 2 strikes" means that you swing like an eight year old girl.

You never answered this:

Why don't teams score more runs when they strike out less?

2013 MLB totals:  19.9% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.17 runs/game for all teams
2008 MLB totals:  17.5% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.65 runs/game for all teams
2003 MLB totals:  16.4% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.73 runs/game for all teams

Do you see a trend between strikeouts and runs scored?

I do.

And partial season results for 2014:

2014 MLB totals:  20.2% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.16 runs/game for all teams

Fits the trend that you claim doesn't exist.

As strikeouts go up, runs scored go down.

SHOCKING!!!  Isn't it?

There are a lot of factors.   Players certainly would stop taking pitches they can "handle" but didn't "like" if forced to put more balls in play.   But, to offset that, I don't think they'd expand their strike zone(Soriano might stop swinging at **** he couldn't hit with 4 ft boat paddle).

I'm certainly not suggesting that every player approach each AB in the exact same way.   But, if you're not not a "power guy"(maybe Granderson is), I believe you'd help your team by putting more balls in play.  

Right, except that correlation doesn't equal causation.  There isn't a correlation to striking out and scoring runs when you look at the teams, individually.  The teams that aren't scoring runs aren't necessarily the teams that are striking out more.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of factors.   Players certainly would stop taking pitches they can "handle" but didn't "like" if forced to put more balls in play.   But, to offset that, I don't think they'd expand their strike zone(Soriano might stop swinging at **** he couldn't hit with 4 ft boat paddle).

I'm certainly not suggesting that every player approach each AB in the exact same way.   But, if you're not not a "power guy"(maybe Granderson is), I believe you'd help your team by putting more balls in play.  

Sure, which is why I agreed that Gardner and Jackson would probably benefit from doing that.  But most of these hitters who strike out a lot aren't necessarily better by cutting down on their swing.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
As strikeouts go up, runs scored go down.

SHOCKING!!!  Isn't it?

Yes, I would have found it shocking had it been true, based on the stats I had seen previously.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Right, except that correlation doesn't equal causation.  There isn't a correlation to striking out and scoring runs when you look at the teams, individually.  The teams that aren't scoring runs aren't necessarily the teams that are striking out more.

The teams that aren't scoring runs are the teams that either have less talented offensive personnel, or play in ballparks that tend to depress offense.  Or both.

Bigger sample size > smaller sample size.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of factors.   Players certainly would stop taking pitches they can "handle" but didn't "like" if forced to put more balls in play.   But, to offset that, I don't think they'd expand their strike zone(Soriano might stop swinging at **** he couldn't hit with 4 ft boat paddle).

I'm certainly not suggesting that every player approach each AB in the exact same way.   But, if you're not not a "power guy"(maybe Granderson is), I believe you'd help your team by putting more balls in play.  

Sure, which is why I agreed that Gardner and Jackson would probably benefit from doing that.  But most of these hitters who strike out a lot aren't necessarily better by cutting down on their swing.

We're never going to know because baseball has swung to the "an out's an out" philosophy.   I imagine as runs scored is going down while K rates are going up, we'll see a swing back to "make contact".    Just might take a few years.

As for the guys you mentioned(and I guess deleted/edited before I could reply), a 450 ft homer from Chris Davis is the same as a 330 ft homer.   Maybe, with a guy like that, making more contact would lead to more 330 ft homers even if it did reduce that 450 ft homer to 408.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Right, except that correlation doesn't equal causation.  There isn't a correlation to striking out and scoring runs when you look at the teams, individually.  The teams that aren't scoring runs aren't necessarily the teams that are striking out more.

The teams that aren't scoring runs are the teams that either have less talented offensive personnel, or play in ballparks that tend to depress offense.  Or both.

Bigger sample size > smaller sample size.

What?  Yes, the teams with less talented offensive personnel aren't scoring runs.  But it doesn't mean they are striking out more than other teams.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/29/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2014 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):
It's better to put the ball in play than to strike out.  It's also better to hit the ball hard than to bunt the ball back to the pitcher.  There are different "levels" to putting the ball in play.

Why does every struck ball, with two strikes, have to be a dribbler to the pitcher?   We're talking about 400ish of the best baseball players in the world.

I think the assumption is that a "just making contact with 2 strikes" means that you swing like an eight year old girl.

You never answered this:

Why don't teams score more runs when they strike out less?

2013 MLB totals:  19.9% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.17 runs/game for all teams
2008 MLB totals:  17.5% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.65 runs/game for all teams
2003 MLB totals:  16.4% strikeout rate for all hitters.  4.73 runs/game for all teams

Do you see a trend between strikeouts and runs scored?

I do.

A) If you look at scoring for teams, there's no correlation between Ks and runs scored.

B) When looking at the entire league, you need to do more than just cherry pick three seasons. Runs scored will vary depending on tons of variables.

Strikeouts are absolutely up in 2014. The K/game rate for the entire league is over 2 standard deviations up from the 1969-2014 mean. If that's causing a problem, there should be some sort of corresponding reduction in runs scored. There isn't. The runs/game total for 2014 is easily within one standard deviation of the 1969-2014 mean.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of factors.   Players certainly would stop taking pitches they can "handle" but didn't "like" if forced to put more balls in play.   But, to offset that, I don't think they'd expand their strike zone(Soriano might stop swinging at **** he couldn't hit with 4 ft boat paddle).

I'm certainly not suggesting that every player approach each AB in the exact same way.   But, if you're not not a "power guy"(maybe Granderson is), I believe you'd help your team by putting more balls in play.  

Sure, which is why I agreed that Gardner and Jackson would probably benefit from doing that.  But most of these hitters who strike out a lot aren't necessarily better by cutting down on their swing.

We're never going to know because baseball has swung to the "an out's an out" philosophy.   I imagine as runs scored is going down while K rates are going up, we'll see a swing back to "make contact".    Just might take a few years.

As for the guys you mentioned(and I guess deleted/edited before I could reply), a 450 ft homer from Chris Davis is the same as a 330 ft homer.   Maybe, with a guy like that, making more contact would lead to more 330 ft homers even if it did reduce that 450 ft homer to 408.

Right, and the 330 ft homer he hits becomes a 290 ft flyout.  That's not good.

I have a friend who has been convinced that Jeter could have been a consistent .285/30 homer type guy for his career, but he was obsessed with the bloop single to right.  Is the .285/30 homer guy better than what Jeter was? Probably. He wanted Jeter to move hit for less contact and more power.  He wanted him to move the needle a little more to what BL and I are comfortable with than you are.

The Royals are last in runs scored in the AL this year.  Guess where they rank in strikeouts.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of factors.   Players certainly would stop taking pitches they can "handle" but didn't "like" if forced to put more balls in play.   But, to offset that, I don't think they'd expand their strike zone(Soriano might stop swinging at **** he couldn't hit with 4 ft boat paddle).

I'm certainly not suggesting that every player approach each AB in the exact same way.   But, if you're not not a "power guy"(maybe Granderson is), I believe you'd help your team by putting more balls in play.  

Sure, which is why I agreed that Gardner and Jackson would probably benefit from doing that.  But most of these hitters who strike out a lot aren't necessarily better by cutting down on their swing.

We're never going to know because baseball has swung to the "an out's an out" philosophy.   I imagine as runs scored is going down while K rates are going up, we'll see a swing back to "make contact".    Just might take a few years.

As for the guys you mentioned(and I guess deleted/edited before I could reply), a 450 ft homer from Chris Davis is the same as a 330 ft homer.   Maybe, with a guy like that, making more contact would lead to more 330 ft homers even if it did reduce that 450 ft homer to 408.

Right, and the 330 ft homer he hits becomes a 290 ft flyout.  That's not good.

I have a friend who has been convinced that Jeter could have been a consistent .285/30 homer type guy for his career, but he was obsessed with the bloop single to right.  Is the .285/30 homer guy better than what Jeter was? Probably. He wanted Jeter to move hit for less contact and more power.  He wanted him to move the needle a little more to what BL and I are comfortable with than you are.

I'm not going to speculate on Jeter except I think a consistent 30 homer guy in Yankee Stadium is not what Jeter could have been.   Just no.

I suppose we'd have to look up how many 330 ft homers Chris Davis hit with 2 strikes to figure that out.   I'm sure it can be done.