Posted by wylie715 on 11/6/2015 1:22:00 PM (view original):

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?

I'm saying what I've said since the start, "in general, an out is an out."

There are always exceptions to generalities.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 1:23:00 PM (view original):

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.

LOL.

You don't agree because it doesn't fit with your retarded argument of the past 64 pages.

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/6/2015 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Interestingly, linear weights analysis indicates that strikeouts actually were worse than other outs 40 years ago but have become increasingly neutral, especially in the post-steroid era.

Good stuff, emphasis mine:

During the past forty years, in strictly absolute terms, the value of a strikeout has stayed fairly steady, with the exception of a valley of increased negative value lasting from roughly 1995 to 2005; even accounting for that, at no point was the value outside of the range of -0.25 to -0.33 runs. What’s far more interesting is the value of a strikeout relative to any other kind of out...What I found is that the relative value of a strikeout has steadily increased, beginning at roughly 0.1 runs worse than a normal out but in 2013 reaching only 0.02 runs worse.  As strikeouts have increased, the run production penalty paid by hitters for striking out has lessened (relative to other outs).

Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 1:23:00 PM (view original):

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.

LOL.

You don't agree because it doesn't fit with your retarded argument of the past 64 pages.

The author said he didn't do it right. He's guessing.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/6/2015 12:46:00 PM (view original):
Interestingly, linear weights analysis indicates that strikeouts actually were worse than other outs 40 years ago but have become increasingly neutral, especially in the post-steroid era.

Good stuff, emphasis mine:

During the past forty years, in strictly absolute terms, the value of a strikeout has stayed fairly steady, with the exception of a valley of increased negative value lasting from roughly 1995 to 2005; even accounting for that, at no point was the value outside of the range of -0.25 to -0.33 runs. What’s far more interesting is the value of a strikeout relative to any other kind of out...What I found is that the relative value of a strikeout has steadily increased, beginning at roughly 0.1 runs worse than a normal out but in 2013 reaching only 0.02 runs worse.  As strikeouts have increased, the run production penalty paid by hitters for striking out has lessened (relative to other outs).

And I think it's fairly obvious why K's are only 0.02 runs worse, and it's for the reason that I've been repeating for many, many pages.

The vast majority of outs are worth the same no matter how they are made. No one can deny that all third outs are the same. No one can deny that all outs with the bases empty are the same. And no one can deny that all of the remaining outs that do not advance a runner are the same.

Even at the highest point, the difference is so small that, from our point of view, it isn't worth worrying about.

It might be worth it to a front office to see if there is some value that can be squeezed out of less K's/more outs in play, but I think their efforts are probably better spent trying to find less outs in general.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Even at the highest point, the difference is so small that, from our point of view, it isn't worth worrying about.

It might be worth it to a front office to see if there is some value that can be squeezed out of less K's/more outs in play, but I think their efforts are probably better spent trying to find less outs in general.

Are you confusing more balls in play with more outs in play?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Even at the highest point, the difference is so small that, from our point of view, it isn't worth worrying about.

It might be worth it to a front office to see if there is some value that can be squeezed out of less K's/more outs in play, but I think their efforts are probably better spent trying to find less outs in general.

Are you confusing more balls in play with more outs in play?

Nope.

Posted by The Taint on 11/6/2015 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/6/2015 1:07:00 PM (view original):
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.

I said this 50 pages ago.

BL has dismissed it, because it contradicts his expert opinion and analysis.