White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on the Rookie records for HR and RBI in April, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 05-23-2013, 12:41 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Even if both runs and strikeouts were at an all-time high, you shouldn't draw the conclusion that strikeouts being at an all-time high contributed to runs being at an all-time high. The two facts might not be related. There are so many factors that come into play in comparing run production in two eight-teams leagues with two 15-league teams, one of which employs the DH. Actually, I find it odd that the two major league teams that struck out the least last season had pitcher in the lineup in more than 150 games, but I draw no conclusions from that fact alone.

I'm not drawing the conclusion that the runs are due to the extra strikeouts. I'm only saying it's ridiculous to say that hitters are being selfish and costing their teams runs at the expense of their own home run total when these teams are scoring more than most teams in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-23-2013, 12:53 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 26,378
Default

My only contribution to this discussion regarding strikeouts / home runs / runs scored is this....don't forget about the caliber of pitching overall when discussing these areas.

That plays a major factor.

Lip
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-23-2013, 01:02 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
I'm not drawing the conclusion that the runs are due to the extra strikeouts. I'm only saying it's ridiculous to say that hitters are being selfish and costing their teams runs at the expense of their own home run total when these teams are scoring more than most teams in the past.
I don't think it's ridiculous at all because it's irrelevant how many runs were scored in the conditions in the past under the rules of the past with the enforced strike zone of the past. Conditions today to score runs are different than they were in 1968, before they lowered the mound, before baseball expanded and diluted pitching, before baseball created a smaller strike zone. Hitters had to be less selfish for teams to score runs. Hitters wear padding now that takes away some of the fear of being hit with an inside pitch so they can be more comfortable at the plate And that just scratches the surface of the myriad differences.

It's ridiculous to say hitters aren't being selfish because there are more runs being scored today.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-23-2013, 02:15 PM
Huisj Huisj is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 3,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I don't think it's ridiculous at all because it's irrelevant how many runs were scored in the conditions in the past under the rules of the past with the enforced strike zone of the past. Conditions today to score runs are different than they were in 1968, before they lowered the mound, before baseball expanded and diluted pitching, before baseball created a smaller strike zone. Hitters had to be less selfish for teams to score runs. Hitters wear padding now that takes away some of the fear of being hit with an inside pitch so they can be more comfortable at the plate And that just scratches the surface of the myriad differences.

It's ridiculous to say hitters aren't being selfish because there are more runs being scored today.
So if we took players and made them use the "less selfish" approach from yesteryear in today's game, then we'd see even more runs, right?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-23-2013, 05:07 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huisj View Post
So if we took players and made them use the "less selfish" approach from yesteryear in today's game, then we'd see even more runs, right?
It really is an irrelevant question. A better question would be whether a team with an unselfish lineup doing what it needs to do to score the runs it needs to win games. I think it's silly to think a team is going to win more games by striking out more.

Obviously, If you have hitters shortening their swing and protecting the plate with two strikes, you are still going to have hitters striking out. But if you can at least put the ball in play on a 3-2 count with one out and runners on first and third, and your manager is confident you can do so and sends the runner, you will score a run where you wouldn't if you are swinging as if you had no regard for the count. You can score a run in the inning with just a single, a walk and two ground outs even if the inning ends with a strike out. That actually kept the White Sox in the game for a while Wednesday night.

One of my pet peeves is the White Sox not scoring with a runner on third and less than two outs. It's not just the White Sox, but when I see it happening to other teams, it doesn't really bother me. Am I the only person here who is frustrated that the White Sox are striking out about 20 percent of the time this year when they come up with a runner on third and less than two outs?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-23-2013, 05:22 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It really is an irrelevant question. A better question would be whether a team with an unselfish lineup doing what it needs to do to score the runs it needs to win games. I think it's silly to think a team is going to win more games by striking out more.

Obviously, If you have hitters shortening their swing and protecting the plate with two strikes, you are still going to have hitters striking out. But if you can at least put the ball in play on a 3-2 count with one out and runners on first and third, and your manager is confident you can do so and sends the runner, you will score a run where you wouldn't if you are swinging as if you had no regard for the count. You can score a run in the inning with just a single, a walk and two ground outs even if the inning ends with a strike out. That actually kept the White Sox in the game for a while Wednesday night.

One of my pet peeves is the White Sox not scoring with a runner on third and less than two outs. It's not just the White Sox, but when I see it happening to other teams, it doesn't really bother me. Am I the only person here who is frustrated that the White Sox are striking out about 20 percent of the time this year when they come up with a runner on third and less than two outs?
No. There are at least two of us.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Paulwny Paulwny is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In a Field
Posts: 6,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It really is an irrelevant question. A better question would be whether a team with an unselfish lineup doing what it needs to do to score the runs it needs to win games. I think it's silly to think a team is going to win more games by striking out more.

Obviously, If you have hitters shortening their swing and protecting the plate with two strikes, you are still going to have hitters striking out. But if you can at least put the ball in play on a 3-2 count with one out and runners on first and third, and your manager is confident you can do so and sends the runner, you will score a run where you wouldn't if you are swinging as if you had no regard for the count. You can score a run in the inning with just a single, a walk and two ground outs even if the inning ends with a strike out. That actually kept the White Sox in the game for a while Wednesday night.

One of my pet peeves is the White Sox not scoring with a runner on third and less than two outs. It's not just the White Sox, but when I see it happening to other teams, it doesn't really bother me. Am I the only person here who is frustrated that the White Sox are striking out about 20 percent of the time this year when they come up with a runner on third and less than two outs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
No. There are at least two of us.

Make it 3.
The other thing that bugs me. In a close game, a double to lead off an inning and the next hitter not attempting to hit the ball to the right side to get the runner to third with less than 2 outs.
__________________
She's the foundation I lean on, My woman, my WIFE.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-23-2013, 09:27 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 861
Default

Nobody likes to see a strike out stranding someone on third, but I am just as frustrated when I see a popup to second.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-23-2013, 09:42 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
Nobody likes to see a strike out stranding someone on third, but I am just as frustrated when I see a popup to second.
And once again, you totally missed the point.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-24-2013, 07:47 AM
SCCWS SCCWS is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
If Dunn is chancing his approach and striking out less do you really think he's going to take as many walks? His average may increase to .216, but his OBP is not going to get to .302, and his slugging is also going to drop. I'm not saying it couldn't be beneficial, but it's not as simple as that.
I think you are confused. The point Rice was making was that guys like Dunn should change their approach when they have 2 strikes not their total batting approach.

Maybe we will see some hitters change their approach. I was watching Boston/Cleveland last night. Carlos Santana who hits 5th for the Indians and before Mark Reynolds bunted against the Boston shift w a man on first. Both runners eventually came around and scored. His next time up the Red Sox changed the shift somewhat and he fouled off a bunt attempt at which point Boston brought the only infielder on that side in quite a bit. He ultimately walked and scored again.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:00 AM
Foulke You Foulke You is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 9,005
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shes View Post
I want him gone as much as anyone, but Dunn's hitting .228/.330/.570 over the last 4 weeks. That's argument enough that he should be in any lineup, let alone arguably the worst lineup in baseball.
5HRs, 10 hits, 2 Doubles, 13 RBI in the last 10 games for Dunn. People like to pretend Dunn hasn't been productive lately. He has looked more like the 2012 version of Dunn than the 2011 one. I know many people still don't like him but for me, Dunn is there to drive in runs and lately he has been doing just that. As long as we are getting the kind of production we have been getting from him for the last 10 games, I can live with the Ks.
__________________
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." -George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:17 AM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCCWS View Post
I think you are confused. The point Rice was making was that guys like Dunn should change their approach when they have 2 strikes not their total batting approach.

Maybe we will see some hitters change their approach. I was watching Boston/Cleveland last night. Carlos Santana who hits 5th for the Indians and before Mark Reynolds bunted against the Boston shift w a man on first. Both runners eventually came around and scored. His next time up the Red Sox changed the shift somewhat and he fouled off a bunt attempt at which point Boston brought the only infielder on that side in quite a bit. He ultimately walked and scored again.
I didn't see the interview, so it's entirely possible that I am not accurately replying to Rice.

There seems to be a general opinion in this thread that strike outs are bad and that the hitters of yesteryear were better and less selfish. Sure you can make a case that increased run production is entirely due to the watering down of the league's pitching, elbow pads, and lowering of the mound, but you are ignoring other factors like the increased use of a bullpen when a starter is struggling, and that expansion teams bring in worse hitting as well as pitching. There are also a lot of years between 1968 and 2000 if you want to ignore the changing of the mound.

I think there are cases when a hitter should change his approach with 2 strikes. I just don't think there is a problem with the league's strikeout total as a whole. Teams strike out more and score more runs this century than the seventies and eighties. Teams also hit for a better average in this century than in the seventies and eighties. I don't think a hitter should have a fear of striking out 150-160 times per season. I think each hitter has a sweet spot where his production will improve by not fearing the strike out and then a point beyond that where he is striking out too much. For some players it might be 110 and others 175.

There seems to be a consensus in this thread that players as a whole strike out too much today and I just don't agree with it, and I don't think there is any evidence that t is true.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:22 AM
Foulke You Foulke You is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 9,005
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
There seems to be a general opinion in this thread that strike outs are bad and that the hitters of yesteryear were better and less selfish. Sure you can make a case that increased run production is entirely due to the watering down of the league's pitching, elbow pads, and lowering of the mound, but you are ignoring other factors like the increased use of a bullpen when a starter is struggling, and that expansion teams bring in worse hitting as well as pitching. There are also a lot of years between 1968 and 2000 if you want to ignore the changing of the mound.
All excellent points. Another thing to take into account is the newer ballparks that have the tantalizingly close HR fences. Players from Jim Rice's era never hit in a place like Minute Maid Park with 363 foot power alleys. Let's face it, lots of these newer parks were built for HRs. Who could blame some of these hitters for a HR swing when a huge chunk of the parks they play in are launching pads?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-24-2013, 02:27 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
I didn't see the interview, so it's entirely possible that I am not accurately replying to Rice.

There seems to be a general opinion in this thread that strike outs are bad and that the hitters of yesteryear were better and less selfish. Sure you can make a case that increased run production is entirely due to the watering down of the league's pitching, elbow pads, and lowering of the mound, but you are ignoring other factors like the increased use of a bullpen when a starter is struggling, and that expansion teams bring in worse hitting as well as pitching. There are also a lot of years between 1968 and 2000 if you want to ignore the changing of the mound.

I think there are cases when a hitter should change his approach with 2 strikes. I just don't think there is a problem with the league's strikeout total as a whole. Teams strike out more and score more runs this century than the seventies and eighties. Teams also hit for a better average in this century than in the seventies and eighties. I don't think a hitter should have a fear of striking out 150-160 times per season. I think each hitter has a sweet spot where his production will improve by not fearing the strike out and then a point beyond that where he is striking out too much. For some players it might be 110 and others 175.

There seems to be a consensus in this thread that players as a whole strike out too much today and I just don't agree with it, and I don't think there is any evidence that t is true.
I wasn't ignoring anything. Actually, today you get less strong innings from your best pitchers overall than you ever have because of the way managers use their bullpens and manage by pitch counts. Most of the newer ballparks, although not on the west coast, are built favoring hitters. Hard evidence that record levels of strikeouts are good or bad for hitting can't be produced because the factors are so radically changing that the evidence would have to be contrived in such a way to affect the prejudice of the person making the point. Striking out consistently is giving up at bats worse than sacrificing because there is no positive result for the offense, barring a defensive mistake. It's true that I once saw a runner score from second to tie a game on a strikeout (a Giants game last year) with two outs in the ninth, but I've also seen a triple play that began with a strikeout (a Phillies game maybe eight years ago).

If you watch the game, the idea that it's OK for a hitter to strike out 150 times or more in a season is simply ridiculous. For it to be forgiven, a player would have to be hitting .300, even better with runners in scoring position and not striking out much at all if there are runners on base. You had better be doing great things offensively when you aren't striking out. Tyler Flowers can't be excused for striking out at his pace. He is the definition of an easy out. For Adam Dunn to be excused, I would think he would have to be hitting .280 with power, both overall and with runners in scoring position. Dunn's on-base percentage is irrelevant as an RBI man who hasn't sniffed a .240 batting average since coming to the White Sox. If you are striking out about once a game, you are either giving up at bats or you have serious holes in your swing with scouting reports are directing even average pitchers how to turn you into an easy out.

If you are looking for some sort of abstract analysis to tell you that strike outs aren't a big deal, you aren't so different from the researcher who concludes his trained frog is deaf because it doesn't jump when he calls it after cutting its legs off. Watch the game. The teams that have been winning are the teams that aren't striking out as much, although offense is only one component a winning team needs. For the last two seasons, the team winning the World Series (I know some don't think that's a big deal) had fewer than 1,000 strikeouts in the regular season, near fewest in the majors, despite having pitchers in their lineup. Two seasons ago, both teams that got to the World Series were the ones who struck out the least in their league. Even the 2011 Texas Rangers, who lost to the NL team that struck out the least while posting the highest team batting average and on-base percentage and, obviously, OPS, struck out the fewest in the American League while having the highest batting average while finishing second in the AL in home runs. That should tell you more than comparing statistical evidence from one year to the next.

Everything I see tells me that if you still believe strike outs are OK, you are on the descending side of the curve.

Watch the game and you will see that teams that don't strike out as much are more likely to score leadoff doubles. Their managers can send runners on 3-2 to stay out of the double play. Their managers can work successful hit and run. I've watched National League games this year where managers have run successful hit and run plays with pitchers at bat.

Ted Williams, in his autobiography, talked about shortening his swing with two strikes and found he still could hit with power with a lighter bat, which he stuck in Frank Howard hands in his later hitting coach days. The year he hit .406, he led the league in home runs with 37 and struck out only 27 times. His mantra was to wait for your pitch. The thing is, he was Ted Williams and he could hit with two strikes.

All I ask is for White Sox hitters to try.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-24-2013, 05:43 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 861
Default

2012
AL Strikeouts
1: Oakland Athletics (94-68) Runs Scored: 8th
2: Tampa Bay Rayes (90-72) Runs Scored: 11th
3: Baltimore Orioles (93-69) Runs Scored: 9th

14: Kansas City Royals (72-90) Runs Scored: 12th
13: Minnesota Twins (66-96) Runs Scored: 10th
12: Cleveland Indians (68-94) Runs Scored: 13th

I'm not going to continue doing that for every single season, but you can look through every single season and see if you can find a strong correlation between strikeouts and runs scored if you want. I don't think you'll find one. As far as the 2011 World Series, the White Sox had the second fewest strikeouts with 989 and scored a whopping 654 runs.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.