Rios Might Hit 3rd...

[WhiteSox5187]

Originally Posted by blandman

Haha...yeah I don't get why people hate strikeouts so much. Usually it's the same people who claim it isn't a big deal when pitchers rack up a ton of them.

Strikeouts aren't a big deal if you're still productive. In some instances, they are the better option (instead of going up there just trying to poke the ball in play, which can lead to a double play). Sure, they're also the worst option in some cases, but really how bad a strikeout is versus any other out is at least situation specific.

Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out. Groundouts and fly outs can be productive, if you're putting the ball in play you are least opening the door to the possibility of an error. A strikeout doesn't allow that. Now, obviously you can have a guy who can strikeout a ton and still be productive (Jim Thome struck out a lot but he was still productive). But Thome was at least hitting about .240 while striking out a lot, when you have a line up of low average, high strike out guys you are giving up a lot of very unproductive outs and are going to wind up struggling to score runs because of that.

My thinking is a bit jumbled right now and I can lay out a better argument later about why I dislike strikeouts so much and I will do that later.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by mzh

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but given that Dunn and Flowers (as far as we know) don't offer much of anything other than some pop (which, as we've seen, is far from a sure thing), them striking out 400 times is a bit of an issue.

If Tyler Flowers hits the 40+ homers that Adam Dunn will hit, then I'll be more than fine with the 200+ strikeouts.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out.

They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Mohoney

They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.

[Mohoney]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.

Ah the magical summer of 2003.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

Strikeouts are a big deal because they are the least productive out. Groundouts and fly outs can be productive, if you're putting the ball in play you are least opening the door to the possibility of an error. A strikeout doesn't allow that. Now, obviously you can have a guy who can strikeout a ton and still be productive (Jim Thome struck out a lot but he was still productive). But Thome was at least hitting about .240 while striking out a lot, when you have a line up of low average, high strike out guys you are giving up a lot of very unproductive outs and are going to wind up struggling to score runs because of that.

My thinking is a bit jumbled right now and I can lay out a better argument later about why I dislike strikeouts so much and I will do that later.

Not true.

Originally Posted by Mohoney

They're not the least productive out for a middle of the order hitter. GIDPs are.

Yes.

[DumpJerry]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

I've been around here long enough to remember what was once Paulie's nickname, GIDPK.

A guy in my office called him 6-4-3.

[tstrike2000]

Originally Posted by Carolina Kenny

Hopefully, Dunn will not be angry if he is moved to 7th or 8th in the order.

Or to another team.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by blandman

...really how bad a strikeout is versus any other out is at least situation specific.

I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

[sullythered]

Over the courses of their careers, these guys have had WAY more success with Rios 2nd,
iPaulie cleanup, and Dunn 5th. It aint even close.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

Do you have stats to back that up?

Also, framing it as strikeout versus every other option (including non-outs) is a little unfair. Isn't a walk also an alternative to every other out then?

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

I will continue to point out that this is a false dichotomy. The alternative to a strikeout isn't some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout." That means either a walk or the ball in play. A walk is obviously better. A ball in play will result in an outcome better than a strikeout (a hit, error, advance a runner) far more often than it will result in an outcome worse than a strikeout (double play.)

A very succinct explanation of the obvious.

Originally Posted by blandman

Do you have stats to back that up?

Also, framing it as strikeout versus every other option (including non-outs) is a little unfair. Isn't a walk also an alternative to every other out then?

No, it is not unfair. And yes, a walk is preferable to most outs, with the exception of walks vs. outs that score a run. A consistent observation of the game is enough to know that a ball in play results in far more positive outcomes than a strikeout does, even with noted exceptions.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by asindc

A very succinct explanation of the obvious.

Not neccessarily as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no correlation between the amount of times a team strikes out and how well or poorly its offense performs. Frankly speaking, teams that hit for high power and have high strike outs almost always outscore teams that hit for low power with low strikeouts.

Originally Posted by asindc

No, it is not unfair. And yes, a walk is preferable to most outs, with the exception of walks vs. outs that score a run.

Except in the most dire of circumstances (trailing by a run in the 9th inning, for example) any play that results in an out is less desirable than one that doesn't, regardless if a run scores or not. Outs are the most precious commodity in baseball.

Originally Posted by asindc

A consistent observation of the game is enough to know that a ball in play results in far more positive outcomes than a strikeout does, even with noted exceptions.

Observation with a bias. Any rudimentary numerical analysis of baseball CLEARLY reveals that what's important is that teams make outs more infrequently (i.e. have a high OBP) and not how they are made.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Not neccessarily as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no correlation between the amount of times a team strikes out and how well or poorly its offense performs. Frankly speaking, teams that hit for high power and have high strike outs almost always outscore teams that hit for low power with low strikeouts.



Except in the most dire of circumstances (trailing by a run in the 9th inning, for example) any play that results in an out is less desirable than one that doesn't, regardless if a run scores or not. Outs are the most precious commodity in baseball.


Observation with a bias. Any rudimentary numerical analysis of baseball CLEARLY reveals that what's important is that teams make outs more infrequently (i.e. have a high OBP) and not how they are made.

1) Teams that hit for average power with low strikeouts are preferable to teams that hit for average power with high strikeouts, which is a more apples-to-apples comparison. Hitting for average or high power is not mutually exclusive to average-to-low strikeout rates.

2) That is absolutely not true. Trading an out for a run is always, always preferable to not making an out when a run does not score. RUNS are the most precious commodity in baseball.

3) Making outs infrequently is not incompatible with low stikeout rates.

Team A: 6000 PAs, 1000 SOs.

Team B: 6000 PAs, 850 SOs.

Assume that the two teams played the same number of times in the same park against the same teams and faced the same pitchers. Except for run-scoring outs and total runs, all other stats (Avg, hits, 2B, SB, HR, other teams' errors made, etc.) are the same. There is no statistical model that can be produced that will show that Team A outscored or even scored the same number of runs as Team B. Team B will have scored more runs and advanced more runners via an out or walk than Team A, resulting in more runs scored total, all else being equal.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by asindc

1) Teams that hit for average power with low strikeouts are preferable to teams that hit for average power with high strikeouts, which is a more apples-to-apples comparison. Hitting for average or high power is not mutually exclusive to average-to-low strikeout rates.

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.

Originally Posted by asindc

2) That is absolutely not true. Trading an out for a run is always, always preferable to not making an out when a run does not score. RUNS are the most precious commodity in baseball.

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.

Originally Posted by asindc

3) Making outs infrequently is not incompatible with low stikeout rates.

Team A: 6000 PAs, 1000 SOs.

Team B: 6000 PAs, 850 SOs.

Assume that the two teams played the same number of times in the same park against the same teams and faced the same pitchers. Except for run-scoring outs and total runs, all other stats (Avg, hits, 2B, SB, HR, other teams' errors made, etc.) are the same. There is no statistical model that can be produced that will show that Team A outscored or even scored the same number of runs as Team B. Team B will have scored more runs and advanced more runners via an out or walk than Team A, resulting in more runs scored total, all else being equal.

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.