Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2015 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Tec, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "an out is an out" means.
All hitters make outs. How they made those outs doesn't matter. How often they make them does. You're looking at Trout and saying, "see, his K rate went down and his OBP went up."
No ****.
He made outs less frequently.
He didn't put more balls in play and OBP/SLG isn't a measurement for "productive" outs. Like I said from the start, Trout wasn't trying to trade his K's for other types of outs. He was trying to avoid outs.
I know exactly what your insistence of "an out is an out" means. I just disagree with the premise.
NOTHING GOOD offensively results from a strikeout. There is a 0.0% chance of an offense increasing it's chances to score runs when a batter strikes out.
You go on and on about the "disastrous" double play possibility as a justification for "strikeouts are better than . . . ". I believe that is more than offset by the positive things that can happen on balls in play, whether they be hits, errors, or productive outs that advance runners.
Complacently accepting strikeouts as "just another kind of out" is foolish, and arguing that the increase in strikeouts has not had an adverse affect on offense is idiotic.
Of course, if you ever watched baseball and had a fundamental understanding of the game, you would realize that.
Yikes, you're just a hurricane of stupidity.
I know exactly what your insistence of "an out is an out" means.
Do you? Because, when you say this,
"...balls in play, whether they be hits, errors, or productive outs that advance runners," it makes me think that you don't.
NOTHING GOOD offensively results from a strikeout.
Correct. Just like almost all other outs, nothing good happens.
You go on and on about the "disastrous" double play possibility as a justification for "strikeouts are better than . . . ".
I'm not justifying anything. I would certainly prefer that my team's hitters never make outs, including strikeouts. I want my hitters to get hits and walks and score a lot of runs. Making outs impedes that. But I have a functioning brain. I know that hitters make outs and do it often and, depending on the situation, certain outs are better/worse than others. It's not hard to see that the vast majority (over 90%) of outs don't impact these certain situations.
Complacently accepting strikeouts as "just another kind of out" is foolish, and arguing that the increase in strikeouts has not had an adverse affect on offense is idiotic.
An increase in outs has absolutely reduced offense. How the out is made hasn't had the same effect. We know because we can compare every team's run scoring over the last 100 years and every team's strikeouts over the last 100 years and see that there is no correlation.
Here's a fun game. Every time you type strikeout, replace the it with pop out and see if your feelings change. See look:
Complacently accepting pop outs as "just another kind of out" is foolish
NOTHING GOOD offensively results from a pop out
There is a 0.0% chance of an offense increasing it's chances to score runs when a batter pops out.