View Single Post
  #10  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:11 AM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
That's not the argument, obviously good offensive teams are better than bad offensive teams, it's just that how often a team K's is not indicative of either.



No, a team's WPA (the probability that they will win based on in-game situation and historical data) will generally drop on plays that result in an out made and a run scored. Again, there are times when this is not true, such as in late game situations when a team is trailing, but generally speaking, for most of innings 1-8 it is never beneficial to make an out. That is a fact backed up numbers, you can choose to accept or deny it all you like. I suppose your WPA may increase on plays when you make an out and score two or three runs, but those are extremely rare. Generally speaking, in terms of win probability, it is beneficial to walk over hitting a sacrifice fly. It is better to walk than it is to ground out and score a runner from third. Outs are more precious because you only get 27 of them. Once they are gone, they are gone.

Runs are more precious because once you get one, it is yours to keep, and they are rarer than outs. It cannot be assumed a run will score after a walk when the same AB could have produced a SF. That's why you take the run even if you have to give up an out to do it.



Well OBVIOUSLY if you're going to stack the deck with your little fantasy you will prevail, but over here in reality (where I am trying to steer the conversation) you will notice that K rate is a very poor way to evaluate an offense. Generally speaking, it doesn't matter how a team makes their outs. I know you guys can harp on how you can advance runners or you can hit into an error over and over and over again, but there just isn't any evidence to suggest any of that really matters in the long run. Over the course of 162 games, outs are simply outs. Teams that make them more frequently are generally worse offensively than teams that don't. It doesn't matter how they are accrued.

Runs are more precious because once you get one, it is yours to keep, and they are rarer than outs. It cannot be assumed a run will score after a walk when the same AB could have produced a SF. That's why you take the run even if you have to give up an out to do it.

My example is not stacked. It compares two otherwise equal offensive teams with the only variable being SOs. Put it another way: If Team A and Team B played each other, started pitchers of equal caliber, had defenses of equal caliber, made the same type of outs, and each got 7 hits, 4 walks, and 1 reached by one-base error, which one is more likely to win, the team that SO just once, or the team that SO 7 times? Now, of course, it matters when the hits, walks, and errors happened within the game, but on average, which team would you prefer?

Striking out less is not in lieu of making less frequent outs. The two are not mutually exclusive.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote