Productive outs are a concept and by pointing to next season, I'm emphasizing the theoretical by using what hasn't occurred yet. Since you can't resist the urge to keep talking about finite examples of seasonal production to try and shift the narrative.

Painfully. Clueless. Moron.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Productive outs are a concept and by pointing to next season, I'm emphasizing the theoretical by using what hasn't occurred yet. Since you can't resist the urge to keep talking about finite examples of seasonal production to try and shift the narrative.

Painfully. Clueless. Moron.

I'm not shifting the narrative.

Dude. Get a clue.

I'm specifically discussing outs that have already happened. Whether it's why the Astros were good in 2017 or why Judge was still awesome in 2017 despite his high K rate, it's been the topic of this thread the entire time.

We can talk about projecting player performance for upcoming seasons if you want, but it will center around contact rates for an entirely different reason and will have nothing to do with the relative values of an out (or a "productive" out).

The reason Judge was brought up was to illustrate the idea of productive outs. If he'd K'd 100 times instead of 200, he'd have had a better season. Which means strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs.

That's the point of the discussion. You just choose to keep babbling on about other stuff.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
The reason Judge was brought up was to illustrate the idea of productive outs. If he'd K'd 100 times instead of 200, he'd have had a better season. Which means strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs.

That's the point of the discussion. You just choose to keep babbling on about other stuff.

Maybe he would have had a better season. We don't know that for sure. I don't know if it would have really been possible.

He had a .422 OBP with a .627 SLG.

We know for a fact that he didn't make too many outs. Maybe it would have been possible for him to alter his approach to make more contact while still hitting for just as much power without making outs more frequently. I don't know for sure, but I think it's a long shot. There is obviously a trade off if you change a hitter's approach to make more contact.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
The reason Judge was brought up was to illustrate the idea of productive outs. If he'd K'd 100 times instead of 200, he'd have had a better season. Which means strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs.

That's the point of the discussion. You just choose to keep babbling on about other stuff.

Quick question, if Judge had replaced 100 of his strikeouts with pop-outs, would that have been more productive?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
The reason Judge was brought up was to illustrate the idea of productive outs. If he'd K'd 100 times instead of 200, he'd have had a better season. Which means strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs.

That's the point of the discussion. You just choose to keep babbling on about other stuff.

Quick question, if Judge had replaced 100 of his strikeouts with pop-outs, would that have been more productive?

This is why I was talking about next season, and not past seasons, because you just don't (or won't) understand.

If he struck out 100 fewer times, he would've put 100 more balls in play. And all 100 would not have been outs. And even if all had been outs, they still could have moved runners over or driven runners in. Strikeouts cannot do that.

So in short, yes, 100 outs in play would have been more productive for his team than 100 strikeouts.

Yeah, that's not what I asked.

If 100 of his 200 strikeouts become pop-outs, is that more productive?

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 5:09:00 PM (view original):
The reason Judge was brought up was to illustrate the idea of productive outs. If he'd K'd 100 times instead of 200, he'd have had a better season. Which means strikeouts are less productive than other kinds of outs.

That's the point of the discussion. You just choose to keep babbling on about other stuff.

I'm not going to read through 12 pages of this thread which I've seen in the past, so forgive me if this has been answered, but why is it the case that he'd have had a better season if he had struck out 100 times? If we're talking about productive outs vs. non-productive outs, then that means none of those Ks turn into hits. So what value do you assign to his 100 outs in play? There's no easy way to measure how many productive outs he made without going through the PBP for every plate appearance. What I do know is that he had 4 sac flies and hit into 15 double plays. And according to this chart, he made 4 outs over the course of the season that increased his team's expected runs.

You know the answer. I know the answer. Mike knows the answer. SJ might know the answer. tec definitely does not know the answer.

The answer is no. That would not be more productive. A pop-up does not help a team any more than a strikeout.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):
You know the answer. I know the answer. Mike knows the answer. SJ might know the answer. tec definitely does not know the answer.

The answer is no. That would not be more productive. A pop-up does not help a team any more than a strikeout.

It's hilarious that you accuse others of only creating "half" examples to fit their narrative and yet it's all you ever do.

What are the odds that every one of his 100 additional outs would be pop-ups? Does any hitter, as it is, hit 100 pop-ups in a season?

Provide a realistic example, and maybe someone will respond.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):
You know the answer. I know the answer. Mike knows the answer. SJ might know the answer. tec definitely does not know the answer.

The answer is no. That would not be more productive. A pop-up does not help a team any more than a strikeout.

It's hilarious that you accuse others of only creating "half" examples to fit their narrative and yet it's all you ever do.

What are the odds that every one of his 100 additional outs would be pop-ups? Does any hitter, as it is, hit 100 pop-ups in a season?

Provide a realistic example, and maybe someone will respond.

OK, I'll indulge this.

Let's say that, of his 208 strikeouts, over 100 were with the bases empty.

Would replacing those 100+ strikeouts with another type of out be more productive?

No, it wouldn't. Say 100 of his 208 strikeouts were with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs. Would replacing those 100 strikeouts with fly ball outs be more productive? without a doubt. what does that prove?

jtp asked for a realistic scenario. So I gave him one.

It is not realistic to think 100 balls put in play would mean 100 outs were made.