Mike Trout Topic

d_rock97
Posts: 4007 (0)
Hall of Famer
618
Prospect
When you say an out is an out, I think a strikeout the same as a flyout. Because this started when Mike Trout said he was gonna cut down on strikeouts and someone said it wouldn't make him more productive. Cutting down on strikeouts helps the team which makes you a more productive player for the team. It is a small difference between strikeouts and clutchness the article I linked said, but if you get a whole lineup of people that don't strikeout, it makes a huge difference (2015 Royals) so, "an out is an out" isn't true because different types of outs cause different scenarios which in some cases helps the team (a strikeout doesn't help the team. And cutting down on strikeouts and putting more balls into play (cuz you're striking out less) makes you a more productive hitter
11/6/2015 2:20 AM
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
o
11/6/2015 3:41 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2015 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 10:27:00 PM (view original):
When I say, "an out is an out," does your retarded brain see it as, "a strikeout is the same as a ball in play?"
Those are both equally retarded statements.  But no.  That's not what I see.

Is that what you see?

You understand that "an out is an out" does not equal "a strikeout is the same as a ball in play," right?
I do.

Do you?

11/6/2015 6:18 AM
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
11/6/2015 6:25 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by d_rock97 on 11/6/2015 2:20:00 AM (view original):
When you say an out is an out, I think a strikeout the same as a flyout. Because this started when Mike Trout said he was gonna cut down on strikeouts and someone said it wouldn't make him more productive. Cutting down on strikeouts helps the team which makes you a more productive player for the team. It is a small difference between strikeouts and clutchness the article I linked said, but if you get a whole lineup of people that don't strikeout, it makes a huge difference (2015 Royals) so, "an out is an out" isn't true because different types of outs cause different scenarios which in some cases helps the team (a strikeout doesn't help the team. And cutting down on strikeouts and putting more balls into play (cuz you're striking out less) makes you a more productive hitter
You're wasting your time trying to explain this to BL.  Not that he doesn't understand it (he may), but his thing is to never back off after he says something idiotic (like "an out is an out").  He'll double down on the stupidity of what he said and continue to argue until the other person gives up in frustration.  Then he'll feel vindicated that the other person ran away because they were unable to crack through the veneer of the iron-clad brilliance of his logic.
11/6/2015 6:40 AM
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
11/6/2015 6:48 AM
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 6:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by d_rock97 on 11/6/2015 2:20:00 AM (view original):
When you say an out is an out, I think a strikeout the same as a flyout. Because this started when Mike Trout said he was gonna cut down on strikeouts and someone said it wouldn't make him more productive. Cutting down on strikeouts helps the team which makes you a more productive player for the team. It is a small difference between strikeouts and clutchness the article I linked said, but if you get a whole lineup of people that don't strikeout, it makes a huge difference (2015 Royals) so, "an out is an out" isn't true because different types of outs cause different scenarios which in some cases helps the team (a strikeout doesn't help the team. And cutting down on strikeouts and putting more balls into play (cuz you're striking out less) makes you a more productive hitter
You're wasting your time trying to explain this to BL.  Not that he doesn't understand it (he may), but his thing is to never back off after he says something idiotic (like "an out is an out").  He'll double down on the stupidity of what he said and continue to argue until the other person gives up in frustration.  Then he'll feel vindicated that the other person ran away because they were unable to crack through the veneer of the iron-clad brilliance of his logic.
You're describing more than 1 person on this site tecwrg..

Well stated view d_rock.
11/6/2015 8:01 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 6:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2015 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 10:27:00 PM (view original):
When I say, "an out is an out," does your retarded brain see it as, "a strikeout is the same as a ball in play?"
Those are both equally retarded statements.  But no.  That's not what I see.

Is that what you see?

You understand that "an out is an out" does not equal "a strikeout is the same as a ball in play," right?
I do.

Do you?

Really? Because: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=1&TopicID=483775&ThreadID=10658067#l_10658067

Quote post by bad_luck on 2/25/2015 7:33:00 PM:
Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2015 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):
No one has ever said that a K was equal to a ball in play.
You did, if the ball in play became an out.

"Outs are outs".  Some nonsense like that.
Yeah, you're dumb. Ball in play is not the same thing as an out in play.
11/6/2015 11:29 AM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by d_rock97 on 11/6/2015 2:20:00 AM (view original):
When you say an out is an out, I think a strikeout the same as a flyout. Because this started when Mike Trout said he was gonna cut down on strikeouts and someone said it wouldn't make him more productive. Cutting down on strikeouts helps the team which makes you a more productive player for the team. It is a small difference between strikeouts and clutchness the article I linked said, but if you get a whole lineup of people that don't strikeout, it makes a huge difference (2015 Royals) so, "an out is an out" isn't true because different types of outs cause different scenarios which in some cases helps the team (a strikeout doesn't help the team. And cutting down on strikeouts and putting more balls into play (cuz you're striking out less) makes you a more productive hitter
No one has ever denied that some outs are more productive in certain situations that others.

No one has ever denied that some outs are much less productive in certain situations that others.

But, relative all other outs, those two situations are fairly rare. There were something like 130,000 outs in 2015. There were 1200 sac flies.

Over the course of a season, most outs are what we could label as neutral outs. A small slice are positive and a small slice are negative. The positive and negative tend to balance out. Players that make a lot of outs in play do it when there's a guy on third and they also do it when there's a guy on first.

In the end, how they made the outs really didn't matter. We know this because we can pull all of the seasons for every team and see that teams that strike out less don't score more runs. There isn't even a correlation, let alone a case for causation.

Now, if your argument is that hitters should try to hit the ball. Duh. Yes, hitters should try to hit the ball. When Mike Trout says he wants to cut down on strikeouts before the season, he's saying he wants to get more hits. He isn't saying he wants to hit more ground outs to second base.
11/6/2015 11:42 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
This article states, in it's conclusion

"So while I would not argue definitively that baseball has reached its tipping point with regard to batter strikeouts, I can demonstrate that a stronger correlation exists between a low batter strikeout percentage and win total in the context of today’s game than it once did. Not only that, but strikeout rate is the only measure that is more strongly correlated to winning percentage today that it was a decade ago. Every other measure has held strong or diminished in importance, which has tended to elevate perennial low-strikeout teams such as the Cardinals, Giants, Rangers, Royals and Tigers to an advantageous position during both the regular season and playoffs.
11/6/2015 1:07 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I don't know if I buy that guy's analysis. His numbers show hitter strikeout percentage correlating to wins more strongly than hitter batting average (2010-2014 sample).

There's too much noise in team wins. It's better to look at team run scoring. Reducing strikeouts only helps you win if it helps you score more. If it doesn't help you score more, it isn't the reason you are winning, even if there is a correlation (I'm pretty sure there isn't).

Here's a comment from the piece, left by the author:

Matt Eddy Mod  • 8 months ago
Upon further reflection, I think many of the conclusions from this piece are sound, and the anecdotal evidence is compelling, but I do not think the methodology was sufficiently rigorous enough to support the conclusions.
11/6/2015 1:17 PM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 1:17:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if I buy that guy's analysis. His numbers show hitter strikeout percentage correlating to wins more strongly than hitter batting average (2010-2014 sample).

There's too much noise in team wins. It's better to look at team run scoring. Reducing strikeouts only helps you win if it helps you score more. If it doesn't help you score more, it isn't the reason you are winning, even if there is a correlation (I'm pretty sure there isn't).

Here's a comment from the piece, left by the author:

Matt Eddy Mod  • 8 months ago
Upon further reflection, I think many of the conclusions from this piece are sound, and the anecdotal evidence is compelling, but I do not think the methodology was sufficiently rigorous enough to support the conclusions.

In the same comment, he also says this:

"Avoiding batter strikeouts appears to be more important today than in the high-octane era ca. 2000 that shaped the way many of us still view team-building."

11/6/2015 1:19 PM
wylie715
Posts: 11480 (1)
Hall of Famer
273 22 3 4 17 1 428
Rookie
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 6:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 5:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
But they may be gaining something. if they swap a groundout that advances a runner for a strikeout, the team is gaining that extra base. If that extra base is third and there are less than 2 outs, it could lead to a run. That is a gain.
If you want to argue that teams score more runs when they strike out less, be my guest.
I don't. I'm just saying all outs do not have the same value. That's why teams sacrifice bunt. Personally, I hate the sacrifice bunt, but there are times (such as a pitcher batting) where it makes some sense.

Most outs have the same value. There are a limited number of situations where certain outs are slightly better or worse than a normal out.
Ah, so you're saying an out is an out except when its not?
11/6/2015 1:22 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 1:17:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if I buy that guy's analysis. His numbers show hitter strikeout percentage correlating to wins more strongly than hitter batting average (2010-2014 sample).

There's too much noise in team wins. It's better to look at team run scoring. Reducing strikeouts only helps you win if it helps you score more. If it doesn't help you score more, it isn't the reason you are winning, even if there is a correlation (I'm pretty sure there isn't).

Here's a comment from the piece, left by the author:

Matt Eddy Mod  • 8 months ago
Upon further reflection, I think many of the conclusions from this piece are sound, and the anecdotal evidence is compelling, but I do not think the methodology was sufficiently rigorous enough to support the conclusions.

In the same comment, he also says this:

"Avoiding batter strikeouts appears to be more important today than in the high-octane era ca. 2000 that shaped the way many of us still view team-building."

He says that, but he doesn't know. Because he didn't do the study correctly.
11/6/2015 1:23 PM
◂ Prev 1...61|62|63|64|65 Next ▸
Mike Trout Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.