Diagnostics for Leadoff Hitters II Topic

bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
MikeT: afraid to answer the question?
You're comparing strikeouts to "helping to score" (by not striking out) - why is it off limits to compare strikeouts to "ending innings via the double play?"
2/22/2008 6:51 PM
_nuke_
Posts: 2 (0)
Veteran
1 17 9
Prospect
bill you should know by now that Mike won't answer questions if the answer goes against what he is arguing.
2/22/2008 6:52 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Every time he refuses to answer you know he's nailed.
He's been nailed a TON in the last 90 pages.
2/22/2008 6:53 PM
a3morey
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 5 2 163
Prospect
very interesting article.
2/22/2008 6:53 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a3morey on 2/22/2008

very interesting article.
Particularly interesting in that it talks at length about the need to be open minded, to learn. To take an honest approach, and not just to lean on conventional wisdom.

And how you can think you know something and be 100% wrong.

----------------------

At the end of Olney's article, he cited Yankees' broadcasters Jim Kaat and Paul O'Neill regarding the Yankees and productive outs:



As club broadcasters Jim Kaat and Paul O'Neill noted last weekend, the team's offense is built much differently than in the championship years; in those seasons, the Yankees advanced runners, put runners in motion, bunted occasionally. While they didn't always have an overpowering offense -- the notable exception being the 125-win season of 1998 -- they had an efficient offense that provided the team's typically strong pitching enough runs to win.

Over the past two postseasons, the Yankees have had a POP of .310. From 1998-2000, when the Yankees won three consecutive championships, they had a POP of .268.

2/22/2008 6:57 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Also interesting:
-------------------------------
A look at all teams shows that while productive outs tend to come at higher rates for teams that win, getting on base seems to be much more important. Winning teams over the past two postseasons had a .360 POP compared to the .301 POP of their opponents, a difference of .059. But winning teams also had a .364 OBP in those situations, compared to a .266 OBP for the losers, a difference of .099. Taking productive outs as a percentage of all opportunities, and not just outs made, you find that the difference between winning teams and losing team is only .008 -- .229 to .221.

This last statistic indicates that making productive outs is not an important part of winning ballgames.
------------------------------
Of course, anyone who believes the opposite is probably just going to repeat something they already said, or dream up yet another "one off" scenario - "TRY SCORING WHEN THERE ARE 26 STRIKEOUTS, HA HA!"
Daddy worship, plain and simple. "TO LEARN SOMETHING WOULD BE TO DISRESPECT MY PA!"
2/22/2008 7:06 PM
Braziman
Posts: 551 (0)
Hall of Famer
298 9 7 9 50 5 40
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 2/22/2008
Wellll.... hardly ever.
(I've never felt like such a nerd. My wife would be proud of this one, though.)


You are the very model of a modern major general (manager).
2/22/2008 7:11 PM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
Open minded isn't mike's strong point. In fact, I'm still trying to find any positives other than comic relief.
2/22/2008 7:47 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By Braziman on 2/22/2008
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 2/22/2008

Wellll.... hardly ever.
(I've never felt like such a nerd. My wife would be proud of this one, though.)



You are the very model of a modern major general (manager).
I believe quoting Gilbert and Sullivan qualifies as "off-topic".
2/22/2008 8:06 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
93 pages. You all qualify as LOOO-SERS.
2/22/2008 8:28 PM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
And you qualify as someone too stupid to avoid 93 pages of something he considers beneath him?
Given the choice between being like you... I'd rather you consider me a looo-ser.
2/22/2008 9:49 PM
examinerebb
Posts: 428 (0)
Hall of Famer
161 20 56
Rookie
I'm sorry - I got to the party late. Tell me if I'm wrong: Everyone concedes that putting the ball in play leads to more hits. Everyone concedes that high strikeout totals are only tolerated from highly productive hitters, rendering the strikeouts:runs scored ratio virtually meaningless. The question now is "how would you rather have somone make an out"?
bill - I understand your argument, I really do. An inning-ending double play is a near-catastrophic failure for an offense. A strikeout (except in conjunction with an unsuccessful stolen base attempt) eliminates that threat. The problem is that the strikeout is symptomatic of a bigger offensive problem for the individual. He is either a) overmatched by the pitcher, or b) taking a poor approach at the plate. One of those might be fixed in a later at bat, the other won't. It also completely eliminates the chances of anything positive happening (which seems to have been conceded as well).
Here's the easier question for the pro-strikeout crowd - can you name a single time you've watched a batter strike out and felt good about what it accomplished offensively? I've seen plenty of players strike out with one out and the bases loaded, and never once thought "well, at least he didn't ground into a double play". All f*ckstick had to do was lift a lazy flyball to get a run home.
2/23/2008 12:26 AM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
There's a thing called slugging percentage. Start looking at the relationship between that and strikeouts and the answers will start becoming clearer. Don't focus on the exceptions to the rule (mike) but look at everybody as a whole.
Man on first, nobody out. 3 weak flyball/non double play ground outs = 0 runs. 2 Ks and a HR = 2 runs. I'll take the 2 runs and win, you can have your contact and lose.
2/23/2008 8:00 AM
bosoxbill
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
85 12 21
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 2/23/2008
I'm sorry - I got to the party late. Tell me if I'm wrong: Everyone concedes that putting the ball in play leads to more hits. Everyone concedes that high strikeout totals are only tolerated from highly productive hitters, rendering the strikeouts:runs scored ratio virtually meaningless. The question now is "how would you rather have somone make an out"?
bill - I understand your argument, I really do. An inning-ending double play is a near-catastrophic failure for an offense. A strikeout (except in conjunction with an unsuccessful stolen base attempt) eliminates that threat. The problem is that the strikeout is symptomatic of a bigger offensive problem for the individual. He is either a) overmatched by the pitcher, or b) taking a poor approach at the plate. One of those might be fixed in a later at bat, the other won't. It also completely eliminates the chances of anything positive happening (which seems to have been conceded as well).
Here's the easier question for the pro-strikeout crowd - can you name a single time you've watched a batter strike out and felt good about what it accomplished offensively? I've seen plenty of players strike out with one out and the bases loaded, and never once thought "well, at least he didn't ground into a double play". All f*ckstick had to do was lift a lazy flyball to get a run home.
I think it's remarkable that this EXACT attitude is addressed in the BP article.

You don't think it's possible that you're guilty of a little "old fashioned" thinking?

As for striking out being the result of a poor approach, I think you should probably look at the strikeout leaders, year by year, at baseball-reference.com. It's a who's who of some pretty awesome hitters. You mean to tell me that, more than any other players in baseball in their years, they were guilty of taking poor approaches?

I think trying to slap a useless two-hopper instead of hitting the ball hard is probably the epitome of a poor approach...

...but the numbers seem to tell me there's no difference. It's an out.
2/23/2008 8:05 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 2/23/2008
There's a thing called slugging percentage. Start looking at the relationship between that and strikeouts and the answers will start becoming clearer. Don't focus on the exceptions to the rule (mike) but look at everybody as a whole.
Man on first, nobody out. 3 weak flyball/non double play ground outs = 0 runs. 2 Ks and a HR = 2 runs. I'll take the 2 runs and win, you can have your contact and lose.


Shockingly, your slugging percentage goes down when you strikeout. Again, it's what you do when you don't whiff that scores runs. Swinging and missing does not produce runs. Shocker that a dumb hick from TN doesn't know this.
2/23/2008 9:10 AM
◂ Prev 1...42|43|44|45|46...48 Next ▸
Diagnostics for Leadoff Hitters II Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.