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.