Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
You have to do it for individual teams.

Why do we see the correlation for the league, as a whole, but not individual teams?

LOL.

BL "making the rules" again.


Bad teams strikeout a lot but their whiffers aren't good hitters otherwise.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 4:45:00 PM (view original):
If we want to make arguments that are at best marginally relevant but sound like they mean something, here you go:

Take the top 30 seasons in history in total K:

25 of them have a wRC+ above 100
they average over 34 HR
they average a .345 OBP; only 2013 Pedro Alvarez OBPs under .300
they average a .488 SLG; only 2011 Drew Stubbs slugs under .400

So the worst hitters in history, per strikeouts, average an .833 OPS.  That's a lot better than average.

This was the post I was referring to earlier today.

You don't get to strike out a lot if you're not doing something valuable when you're not whiffing.     It's sort of like pitcher losses.   If you're not doing something right, you're not getting the opportunity to lose 20.   

Here are some players who struck out more than once every 3 AB since 2000(min 200 PA):
Kelly Shoppach  2012
Brad Eldred 2005
Brett Wallace 2013
Juan Francisco  A couple of times
Jason Dubois  2005

Pretty solid list of All-Stars, isn't it?

Pretty sure every one of these guys was on a bad team.    They whiffed a lot and didn't provide any value the rest of the time.

IOW, Mike Trout can strike out 180 and he's still going to get his 600 AB because of what he does when he doesn't strikeout.    Brett Wallace cannot.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
You have to do it for individual teams.

Why do we see the correlation for the league, as a whole, but not individual teams?

Sample size. There's too much going on to attribute a downturn in scoring to one variable when you're only looking at 20 examples. Looking at every team season since 1920 produces a coefficuent of 0.06. OBP correlates at 0.80. I have a hard time believing that something changed so drastically that suddenly strikeouts correlate to run scoring better than the historic OBP correlation.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.

I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."

LOL.

Who is ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit with what you already "know"?

I'll take a guess and say "badluck".

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:30:00 AM (view original):
I'll take a guess and say "badluck".

DING!  DING!  DING!

WINNER!

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
You have to do it for individual teams.

Why do we see the correlation for the league, as a whole, but not individual teams?

Sample size. There's too much going on to attribute a downturn in scoring to one variable when you're only looking at 20 examples. Looking at every team season since 1920 produces a coefficuent of 0.06. OBP correlates at 0.80. I have a hard time believing that something changed so drastically that suddenly strikeouts correlate to run scoring better than the historic OBP correlation.

Maybe it's something along these lines. Team A scores 4.5 runs per game and Ks 1200 times a year, and Team B scores 4.3 runs per game and Ks 1000 times a year. With a different mindset of "be more free-swinging, Ks are ok," Team A scores 4.4 runs per game and Ks 1400 times, and Team B scores 4.2 runs per game and Ks 1200 times.

I think it's possible that everyone is right, in some sense.  Outs are outs over the course of a season. A strikeout isn't worse than the average out(s) in play. (tec would still be wrong when he argues otherwise) But it's possible that players are being a little too loose in their atbats now, thinking that "strikeouts are just another out" means "strikeouts are ok" which would be the equivalent of "outs are ok." 

Personally, I think pitchers have just gotten a lot better.  Think about it - if the average hit percentage on a ball in play is 30%, whether it's 1994 or 2014 (I'm assuming that hasn't changed much) and pitchers are better, and throw more difficult pitches to hit. If there's a higher percentage of "unhittable" pitches, there are less pitches to put in play, therefore, Ks go up overall, across the board. So, if you took this current crop of hitters, and put them back in the 1990s, their strikeouts would drop as a whole. Pitchers are improving at a faster rate than hitters.

Yea, the more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense. We saw offensive records fall in the 90s, and it had nothing to do with cutting back on strikeouts. Roids helped many players tremendously. Take them out of the game, and hitters aren't as good, as a whole, and pitching doesn't change as much. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
You have to do it for individual teams.

Why do we see the correlation for the league, as a whole, but not individual teams?

Sample size. There's too much going on to attribute a downturn in scoring to one variable when you're only looking at 20 examples. Looking at every team season since 1920 produces a coefficuent of 0.06. OBP correlates at 0.80. I have a hard time believing that something changed so drastically that suddenly strikeouts correlate to run scoring better than the historic OBP correlation.

Maybe it's something along these lines. Team A scores 4.5 runs per game and Ks 1200 times a year, and Team B scores 4.3 runs per game and Ks 1000 times a year. With a different mindset of "be more free-swinging, Ks are ok," Team A scores 4.4 runs per game and Ks 1400 times, and Team B scores 4.2 runs per game and Ks 1200 times.

I think it's possible that everyone is right, in some sense.  Outs are outs over the course of a season. A strikeout isn't worse than the average out(s) in play. (tec would still be wrong when he argues otherwise) But it's possible that players are being a little too loose in their atbats now, thinking that "strikeouts are just another out" means "strikeouts are ok" which would be the equivalent of "outs are ok." 

Personally, I think pitchers have just gotten a lot better.  Think about it - if the average hit percentage on a ball in play is 30%, whether it's 1994 or 2014 (I'm assuming that hasn't changed much) and pitchers are better, and throw more difficult pitches to hit. If there's a higher percentage of "unhittable" pitches, there are less pitches to put in play, therefore, Ks go up overall, across the board. So, if you took this current crop of hitters, and put them back in the 1990s, their strikeouts would drop as a whole. Pitchers are improving at a faster rate than hitters.

FINALLY!  A post that has some semblance of understanding.

Plate discipline as a whole has declined drastically over the years.  Hitters have been transforming from approaching their AB's situationally (based on score, game situation, count, etc.) to the idea of free swinging, grip it and rip it, and hope for the best.  Not everybody, but that seems to be the mindset as a whole.  And that's combined with a "strikeouts are not that bad a thing" mentality that didn't really used to be a part of the game.  That's the Kool Aid that BL seems to be drinking.

And I'm not sure that pitchers today have gotten a lot better.  I think a big part of the pitching mindset today is to throw harder.  There are more pitchers who tend to throw mid-high 90's in the game today than ever before.  Why is that?  I think part of it is the way the game has been managed over the past 25 years or so (I blame LaRussa).  Starting pitchers are no longer expected to go 7 or 8 or 9 innings anymore.  They're only expected to go 6.  So, not having to throttle back to pace themselves over more innings per outing, they throw harder over 6 innings.  And then the bullpen takes over.  And unlike the "old" days when relievers would go multiple innings, now you have your seventh inning guy, your eighth inning guy, and your ninth inning closer.  All of whom tend to throw harder because they know they're only going one inning.

So a combination of hitters mentality (swing harder, strikeouts are no big deal) and pitcher's mentality (throw harder, try to blow the batter away, I'm only pitching "x" innings) lead to more and more strikeouts, and as we are seeing, fewer runs.

I like your point about the pitching being better because of it being unnecessary to throw so many innings a game.

We'll disagree on the ratio of that combination - I think it has more to do with pitching being better overall, and the lack of roids in the game to help the offense, than the mindset of the hitter. 

I don't think pitching is better.  Usage is different and, quite honestly, hitters are worse.    When free-swinging 'roid monsters made contact, the ball went further.   So, with the likelihood of a struck ball clearing the fence, it made sense to worry less about swinging and missing.   Now hitters simply aren't generating the same bat speed.   Struck balls don't travel as fast or as far.  It now makes sense to put more balls in play.

Hitters will adjust and start making more contact.

Truth is, a guy like Trout probably shouldn't.   He still has the power to put balls in the seats.   It's the guy that went from 22 to 10 that needs to change his approach.

Situationally speaking, of course.   There will be times when not whiffing will benefit the team.    But I can't imagine a scenario where he should cut his swing down a hundred AB a year and finish with 100 whiffs instead of 180.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 11:15:00 AM (view original):
I don't think pitching is better.  Usage is different and, quite honestly, hitters are worse.    When free-swinging 'roid monsters made contact, the ball went further.   So, with the likelihood of a struck ball clearing the fence, it made sense to worry less about swinging and missing.   Now hitters simply aren't generating the same bat speed.   Struck balls don't travel as fast or as far.  It now makes sense to put more balls in play.

Hitters will adjust and start making more contact.

Truth is, a guy like Trout probably shouldn't.   He still has the power to put balls in the seats.   It's the guy that went from 22 to 10 that needs to change his approach.

Exactly.

Pitching isn't better.  It's just different.

And now we await BL rejoining the discussion with his unique way to turn it stupid again.