. . . . wants to cut down on his strikeouts.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/12381485/mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-ready-erase-bad-aftertaste-2014-playoff-disappointment

Perhaps BL needs to have a sit-down with MT and tell him how strikeouts for hitters are not so big deal.  Because, you know, an out is an out.

Trout obviously doesn't understand advanced metrics. 

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
. . . . wants to cut down on his strikeouts.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/12381485/mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-ready-erase-bad-aftertaste-2014-playoff-disappointment

Perhaps BL needs to have a sit-down with MT and tell him how strikeouts for hitters are not so big deal.  Because, you know, an out is an out.

Outs are outs. Pretty sure Trout's goal isn't to trade those strikeouts for ground outs.

From the link:

"Obviously, you don't want to strike out. I'd like to put the ball in play and let my legs help me get a few more hits."


I don't think anyone has ever argued that strikeouts are the same as hits.

I think somebody has tried to argue that strikeouts were no different from other outs.

Now, who might that have been  . . . ?

They aren't different. Trout isn't trying to trade K's for other outs. He's trying to reduce K's in order to increase his OBP. It makes sense, his K rate spike last year by 7% and his OBP dropped from ~.430 to ~.380.

You know what's hysterical? I saw the story on espn. And I thought "I know tec created a thread about this, just to troll BL." Yup.

Trout isn't trying to trade strikeouts for groundouts.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2015 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Trout isn't trying to trade strikeouts for groundouts.

Bingo

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2015 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Trout isn't trying to trade strikeouts for groundouts.

Of course he isn't.   He'd like to get more hits or, barring that, draw more walks.    But you know what doesn't happen when you swing and miss?   Hits or walks. 


Pretty sure we've been thru this before. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/25/2015 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2015 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Trout isn't trying to trade strikeouts for groundouts.

Of course he isn't.   He'd like to get more hits or, barring that, draw more walks.    But you know what doesn't happen when you swing and miss?   Hits or walks. 


Pretty sure we've been thru this before. 

Hits and walks aren't outs. Nothing new here.

Also from the article: "He attributed the spiraling strikeout total to a lack of plate discipline . . . "

I think we also had this discussion before, about a growing lack of plate discipline among MLB hitters today.  I think you dismissed that as "no big deal".

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/25/2015 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2015 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Trout isn't trying to trade strikeouts for groundouts.

Of course he isn't.   He'd like to get more hits or, barring that, draw more walks.    But you know what doesn't happen when you swing and miss?   Hits or walks. 


Pretty sure we've been thru this before. 

"Of course he isn't." I guess we're done here. Trout is trying to make less outs.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Also from the article: "He attributed the spiraling strikeout total to a lack of plate discipline . . . "

I think we also had this discussion before, about a growing lack of plate discipline among MLB hitters today.  I think you dismissed that as "no big deal".

Kinda reaching, aren't you?

A lack of discipline results in a lowered OBP. Some of the best disciplined hitters in baseball strike out a ton. Guys like Adam Dunn and Nick Johnson had great plate discipline.

The problem is that tec is too dumb to grasp the difference between looking at K rates after a season and trying to assess how effective the batter was based on his K rate and using K rate to predict future returns....

Retrospectively, Ks don't matter very much.  But changing K rate can still make you better.  And tec probably thinks that's an oxymoronic pair of sentences.