Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
I'll let you ponder deeper why I asked that question....but I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
But why rag on Gene Tenace if you understand that there are other more important aspects to hitting, such as OB% and SLG%? Either Tenace is really good or batting average is a bad measurement. Which is it???
Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
Terry Forster has a lifetime OPS of .887
George Brett has a lifetime OPS of .857
I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion. I'm sure Darin may not like your assessment.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
So if we look deeper at a more complex way of measurement like you want, Forster has a better OPS than Brett....so is Forster a better hitter in that more complex measurement??
So I have to ask, if you are familiar with merit of the more complex measurements and recognize park factors(like you bring up with Santo), then why is it such a silly notion when someone says Gene Tenace is better hitter than Buster Posey when Tenace has a lifetime 136 OPS+ and Posey is only at 128?? For a complex analyst as you claim you are, that doesn't seem so silly, does it?
In World Series play Tenace has a lifetime .879 OPS. Posey has a World Series OPS of .616.
So what leg do you have to stand on to claim Posey being in the same universe as Tenace based on all the things you claim are important?
Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
Terry Forster has a lifetime OPS of .887
George Brett has a lifetime OPS of .857
I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion. I'm sure Darin may not like your assessment.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
So if we look deeper at a more complex way of measurement like you want, Forster has a better OPS than Brett....so is Forster a better hitter in that more complex measurement??
So I have to ask, if you are familiar with merit of the more complex measurements and recognize park factors(like you bring up with Santo), then why is it such a silly notion when someone says Gene Tenace is better hitter than Buster Posey when Tenace has a lifetime 136 OPS+ and Posey is only at 128?? For a complex analyst as you claim you are, that doesn't seem so silly, does it?
In World Series play Tenace has a lifetime .879 OPS. Posey has a World Series OPS of .616.
So what leg do you have to stand on to claim Posey being in the same universe as Tenace based on all the things you claim are important?
You can disagree all you want that Forster is not a better batting average hitter than Brett, but if the lifetime statistics show that his average was higher than Brett's, then it is what it is.
I always recognized that batting average is only a small piece of analyzing hitting greatness.
If Forster has a better OPS than Brett, then he does. Nothing we can do about it. Doesn't mean he was a better
all around hitter than Brett. All it tells us is that he had a higher OPS.
I did not say that Buster Posey is a better hitting catcher than Gene Tenace. Try to slow down and understand what you read. I said that Buster Posey was a better catcher than Gene Tenace. That includes both offense and defense. If you understood defensive metrics for catchers, you would find out that Posey edges out Tenace in the overall catcher category.
Tenace has a slight edge in hitting due to his ability to draw walks, but Posey is a better defensive catcher, much better, which gives him the edge.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
You may want tighten your methods up a bit.
You don't understand the defensive metrics the way I understand them. Posey blows Tenace away in defensive wins above replacement. It's not even close.
I never said I discounted Brett's defense in the postseason.
You know what. I'm actually tired of talking to you. Your mind is all over the place and you tell people they say
things when they never said them. I actually now find you a little disturbed in your mind.
That's ok. Someone else will enjoy chatting with you, but if you find that people avoid you because you tell them
they said things that they didn't say, then you can thank me, because it seems to be a big problem with you.
Then you ask if Terry Forster is a better average hitter than George Brett. If the numbers say he is, then he is.
We can only go on the data we have. If Forster is better, he is better.
I can only look at the numbers.
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
Terry Forster has a lifetime OPS of .887
George Brett has a lifetime OPS of .857
I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion. I'm sure Darin may not like your assessment.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
So if we look deeper at a more complex way of measurement like you want, Forster has a better OPS than Brett....so is Forster a better hitter in that more complex measurement??
So I have to ask, if you are familiar with merit of the more complex measurements and recognize park factors(like you bring up with Santo), then why is it such a silly notion when someone says Gene Tenace is better hitter than Buster Posey when Tenace has a lifetime 136 OPS+ and Posey is only at 128?? For a complex analyst as you claim you are, that doesn't seem so silly, does it?
In World Series play Tenace has a lifetime .879 OPS. Posey has a World Series OPS of .616.
So what leg do you have to stand on to claim Posey being in the same universe as Tenace based on all the things you claim are important?
You can disagree all you want that Forster is not a better batting average hitter than Brett, but if the lifetime statistics show that his average was higher than Brett's, then it is what it is.
I always recognized that batting average is only a small piece of analyzing hitting greatness.
If Forster has a better OPS than Brett, then he does. Nothing we can do about it. Doesn't mean he was a better
all around hitter than Brett. All it tells us is that he had a higher OPS.
I did not say that Buster Posey is a better hitting catcher than Gene Tenace. Try to slow down and understand what you read. I said that Buster Posey was a better catcher than Gene Tenace. That includes both offense and defense. If you understood defensive metrics for catchers, you would find out that Posey edges out Tenace in the overall catcher category.
Tenace has a slight edge in hitting due to his ability to draw walks, but Posey is a better defensive catcher, much better, which gives him the edge.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
You may want tighten your methods up a bit.
You don't understand the defensive metrics the way I understand them. Posey blows Tenace away in defensive wins above replacement. It's not even close.
I never said I discounted Brett's defense in the postseason.
You know what. I'm actually tired of talking to you. Your mind is all over the place and you tell people they say
things when they never said them. I actually now find you a little disturbed in your mind.
That's ok. Someone else will enjoy chatting with you, but if you find that people avoid you because you tell them
they said things that they didn't say, then you can thank me, because it seems to be a big problem with you.
You completely discounted Brett's defense.
Tenace has a higher overall WAR than Posey, so your notion of Posey being better using the advanced metrics is inaccurate....yet you made fun of someone else for even suggesting that Tenace was better than Posey. Which is it?
You made this whole big deal about what they do in the post season that defines who is better. Tenace blew Posey away in the post season. Make up your mind.
Mickey Mantle could switch hit in case the manager wants to play matchups, he could drag bunt and had good speed and obviously had solid HR power, too, including in the World Series.
That’s quite a lot of ways to get the guy in from third...😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I do have to ask, which meaningless small sample size are you going by?
To you meaningless. To others very significant.
The major league postseason is loaded with great pressure, high stakes, better pitching, and better defenses.
The answer to the OP's question is simply David Ortiz. In 3 lifetime World Series the guy hit .455 with
a 1.372 OPS for a 40.7 WPA. I simply do not know if you could find someone with better World Series data
than David Ortiz.
In my opinion, there are a few facts and and ideas that stick out to me.
In baseball, we all know about the hot streak and the slump. The larger the sample size, you can make your assessments.
But we also know about the clutch hitter. The guy who had a down game, series, year, whatever, but is more clutch.
In my opinion you either believe in these things or you don't, and that goes a long way towards fleshing out these discussions for me. Because you could just say, in answer to the OP's question, whichever hitter is hottest at that moment on that team. Or you can think about the guy who got hot at the right time and isn't in a slump at that moment.
So is the guy inserted into that moment or he is there organically?
Let me know if what I'm talking about makes sense to any of you, and possibly help me along in this. 😂
I've read everybody's picks and reasoning and I'm still sticking with the professional pinch hitter and rolling the dice with Gates Brown. One at bat. One time
Brown still ranks as one of the best pinch-hitters in Major League Baseball history and was never better than in 1968, when he led the Tigers with a .370 batting average and lofty 1.127 OPS while picking up six homers, 15 RBIs and 12 walks.
In 92 official at-bats, Brown struck out just four times.
Many of Brown's hits came when the game was the line, starting with the second game of the season when his pinch-hit home run in the bottom of the ninth inning gave the Tigers a 4-3 win over Boston. It was his first at-bat of the season.
Brown pinch-hit 39 times in 1968 and had a .450 batting average in those situations, belting three home runs among nine extra base hits. He struck out just one time while pinch-hitting.
Some of the numbers he put up bordered on incredible.
In 16 eighth-inning at bats in '68, Brown had a .611 batting average.
In 17 ninth-inning at-bats, he hit .412 with two homers and six RBIs.
In 40 combined at-bats during the seventh, eighth and ninth innings, he batted .475 with two home runs and six RBIs.
In 36 at-bats that came after the seventh inning or beyond -- including extra innings -- he batted .488 with four homers among 10 extra-base hits and 10 RBIs.
Finally, in 22 at-bats during the first three innings of games in 1968, Brown hit .143.
If those statistics don't define clutch, what does?
Brown still holds the American League record for pinch hits (107) and pinch-hit home runs (16), according to the Baseball Almanac, which lists his 414 career pinch-hit at-bats as an MLB record.
Brown first came to the attention of the Tigers while playing prison baseball as an inmate in the Ohio State Reformatory, where he was serving time after being convicted of armed robbery
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Gates Brown hit 6 HR in 92 ABs and drove in 15 runs, which was very impressive in 1968. But do you know who hit 7 HR in 88 ABs and drove in 17 runs that year? Tigers pitcher Earl Wilson. Even though they beat the Cardinals in the World Series, I can't help but be a fan of the '68 Tigers. So many great stories.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I do have to ask, which meaningless small sample size are you going by?
To you meaningless. To others very significant.
The major league postseason is loaded with great pressure, high stakes, better pitching, and better defenses.
The answer to the OP's question is simply David Ortiz. In 3 lifetime World Series the guy hit .455 with
a 1.372 OPS for a 40.7 WPA. I simply do not know if you could find someone with better World Series data
than David Ortiz.
In my opinion, there are a few facts and and ideas that stick out to me.
In baseball, we all know about the hot streak and the slump. The larger the sample size, you can make your assessments.
But we also know about the clutch hitter. The guy who had a down game, series, year, whatever, but is more clutch.
In my opinion you either believe in these things or you don't, and that goes a long way towards fleshing out these discussions for me. Because you could just say, in answer to the OP's question, whichever hitter is hottest at that moment on that team. Or you can think about the guy who got hot at the right time and isn't in a slump at that moment.
So is the guy inserted into that moment or he is there organically?
Let me know if what I'm talking about makes sense to any of you, and possibly help me along in this. 😂
It's foolish to think that there are two types of streaks when it comes to hitting. The hot streaks and the cold streaks.
We all know the story of Yaz going 0 for 4 in Game 1 of the 1967 World Series. The next day he asked for an extra hour in batting practice before game 2. Not only did he go 3 for 4 in Game 2, but he finished the series hitting .400.
Hitting is not only about preparation, but it's also about being over matched by better pitching. Yaz went 0 for 4 against Bob Gibson in Game 1. He went 2 for 4 against Gibson the next time he faced him.
Hitting can go in streaks, but a good streak comes when a good hitter is well prepared, comfortable at the plate, and not over matched by a great pitcher. A few Randy Johnson's and Sandy Koufax's can put a few hitters in a slump right away.
Great hitters like Ortiz, Brett, and others who hit well in the regular season and postseason are not susceptible to cold streaks like lesser hitters like Schmidt because they are just better hitters, and not over matched by better pitchers.
Goose Gossage was the most feared pitcher during a stretch of his career, and George Brett owned him.
Mariano Rivera was the most feared pitcher during a stretch of his career, and Ortiz could take care of him.
HItting is about preparation, and being able to recognize a curve ball, and being a better hitter than others.
Was the reason Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux consistently got 2 points per game during their entire career because they were streaky good, or was it because they were just superior to the other skaters and goalies, and saw a lot of power play time ?
Was Jim Brown streaky good, or was he just able to dominate over the competition ?
How about tennis ? Is it about streaks, or is it about superior playing ability ?
How about Golf ? Is it about preparation, focus, and skill, or is it about what kind of luck you're having that day ?
Sports is all about mental and physical preparation, good health, and ability. Either you have it, or you don't.
Talking about streaks takes all the responsibility off the athlete, and puts on some mystical fantasy that doesn't
exist.
What can be proven in baseball and is accepted by everyone is that good pitching will beat good hitting, and great
hitting will beat good pitching. But what is more important is whether that pitcher or hitter on game day is A. Healthy
B. Well rested and well prepared C. Focused and determined for success D. Not over matched E. Working on his or her weaknesses in his or her sport to get better F. Not having family issues to distract their focus
A good pitcher has a bad day on the mound. What's the first thing you hear from the announcer ? He didn't have
his good stuff tonight. He couldn't locate with his fastball or change up. It has nothing to do with a streak. It has to do
with is the pitcher loose ? Is he feeling good with the grip on the ball ? Does he need more pine tar on his fingers ? Is his elbow in the correct position ? Is the mound giving him trouble ? Is he hung over from last night ?
It's very simple. Did Wade Boggs turn from an average fielding third baseman to a slightly above average fielding third baseman because he became streaky good ? Or was it because he worked hard at his trait ?
Does fielding in baseball go in streaks too ? Or is it just hitting ? If hitting is streaky, then why isn't fielding ?
I just have to laugh at people who talk about small sample size. I was a good hitter in my day.
I was going 3-4 against average pitching, and going 1-4 when it came state tournament time. It's that simple.
You put an average pitcher on the mound and it was time to feast. You put a kid on the mound who threw 88 and above
and it was going to be a challenging day at the plate.
People who talk about small sample size must have never played the game at a high level. You either had the skill
and worked hard at the skill and found success more times than not, or you didn't have the skill and you struggled.
It separates the big leaguers from the minor leaguers.
@Tabe said:
If we're going off of small sample sizes, the answer is Barry Bonds. .700 OBP and 1.994 OPS in the World Series.
It's not that Barry was good. It's just that he was on a good streak. Had nothing to do with him over matching good pitching.
Had nothing to do with him being totally focused in the moment, totally confident in his skills, totally well prepared, well rested, studying film of the pitchers he was going to face. Spending extra time in the batters box below the stadium.
Over 162 games, I do think most guys tend to run hot and cold. There are a select few players - most of those being discussed and they are the best of the best - who are more consistent and less susceptible to going cold.
But as a Rotisserie baseball player for 20 years, I can tell you that most players will accrue the vast majority of their stats for the season in short periods of time interspersed by long periods of being unproductive.
I would agree that some of it is tied to physical and mental health but some of it is just the way baseball works, I think.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
with all the talk about strikeouts, both here and in other threads, and now the talk about hitting streaks (both hot and cold) I will put my .02 out there.
there are times when hitters get streaky. some more than others. there has been talk that strikeouts are no worse than rollers to the 2nd baseman or pop ups etc. there are times, anecdotally, when hitters have been mired in a 3 week slump and a 5 hopper up the middle sneaks by the SS and something ignites in the hitter and they are out of a cold streak. whether it is a confidence thing or just luck, I don't know, but I think we all have seen it happen to guys.
the difference between a guy who strikes out 175 times a season and a guy who grounds out that many times is that the strikeout will never have a chance to roll between the 1st and 2nd baseman to get a hitter out of a cold streak.
Over 162 games, I do think most guys tend to run hot and cold. There are a select few players - most of those being discussed and they are the best of the best - who are more consistent and less susceptible to going cold.
But as a Rotisserie baseball player for 20 years, I can tell you that most players will accrue the vast majority of their stats for the season in short periods of time interspersed by long periods of being unproductive.
I would agree that some of it is tied to physical and mental health but some of it is just the way baseball works, I think.
I respect this statement, but I disagree with it. My thumb bothered me just like Dustin Pedroia's thumb bothered him. Both of us got hit by a pitch. Manager kept both of us in the lineup because the replacement wasn't better than an unhealthy Perdroia or me. I went on a cold streak just like Dustin did. Poor health.
Red Sox had a very promising young hitter named Tony C. who was awesome until he had an eye injury after getting hit in the head. Never was the same. Did he go on a prolonged bad streak, or was it due to poor health ?
Curt Schilling was a very consistent pitcher in the playoffs. He took notes. He was well prepared. Even a little bit of poor ankle health couldn't stop him because of his determination to shut up 50 thousand fans in Yankee stadium. The guy
was a mental monster when it came to competition, and he was very well prepared.
Manny Ramirez always watched video. David Ortiz did as well. Ortiz became a much better hitter in Boston after he
changed his swing that he had in Minnesota. Totally revamped his career.
Injuries, poor health, family issues, too much partying between games, not watching enough video on your own swing mechanics. Not practicing those mechanics every day. Not being overmatched by better pitching. This all comes into
account as to whether a hitter will be consistently good, or go hot and cold.
It has nothing to do with a mystical streak. It has everything to do with preparation, health, focus, determination,
and whether or not your major league hitting ability is better than major league pitching.
All players in the postseason are responsible for their performance. Small sample size has absolutely nothing
to do with it. It's all about preparation, determination, and ability with good mental and physical health.
@craig44 said:
with all the talk about strikeouts, both here and in other threads, and now the talk about hitting streaks (both hot and cold) I will put my .02 out there.
there are times when hitters get streaky. some more than others. there has been talk that strikeouts are no worse than rollers to the 2nd baseman or pop ups etc. there are times, anecdotally, when hitters have been mired in a 3 week slump and a 5 hopper up the middle sneaks by the SS and something ignites in the hitter and they are out of a cold streak. whether it is a confidence thing or just luck, I don't know, but I think we all have seen it happen to guys.
the difference between a guy who strikes out 175 times a season and a guy who grounds out that many times is that the strikeout will never have a chance to roll between the 1st and 2nd baseman to get a hitter out of a cold streak.
But if the hitter is already getting those hits and striking out and still hitting .300. Doesn't mater if he is striking out or popping out. Same thing.
If you are hitting .190 you obviously need to put the bat on the ball more if you are striking out because by nature, hitting 100 more balls in play should net a few extra fall for hits. However, if you are already a .300 hitter with power, then merely tryinig to put the ball in play may get you a few extra hits, but could prevent you from hitting harder hit balls for home runs....and then prevent walks too.
If you continue to hit .190 with no power, with or without striking out, doesn't matter, you are terrible, and won't be around very long.
@craig44 said:
with all the talk about strikeouts, both here and in other threads, and now the talk about hitting streaks (both hot and cold) I will put my .02 out there.
there are times when hitters get streaky. some more than others. there has been talk that strikeouts are no worse than rollers to the 2nd baseman or pop ups etc. there are times, anecdotally, when hitters have been mired in a 3 week slump and a 5 hopper up the middle sneaks by the SS and something ignites in the hitter and they are out of a cold streak. whether it is a confidence thing or just luck, I don't know, but I think we all have seen it happen to guys.
the difference between a guy who strikes out 175 times a season and a guy who grounds out that many times is that the strikeout will never have a chance to roll between the 1st and 2nd baseman to get a hitter out of a cold streak.
Take Javy Baez. He has 18 strikeouts to one walk and hitting .220. If he is doing that while batting .220 and slugging .463, he will still have a job since he is a SS, but he is nothing to write home about. In his near MVP season he struck out 167 times and walked 29 times. He has horrible plate discipline, but his near MVP year he still managed to hit .290 and slug .554, hence why he almost won MVP. That strikeouts don't matter other than how many times a guy happens to move a runner up on a batted ball out(which doesn't happen all the time).
Would Cub fans love to see Baez lay off those breaking pitches and get more hits. Of course. Can he? I'm not so sure. Sometimes that is just what you are. Wouuld people be happier if Baez struck out 100 times less and hit .310 and SLUG .450 instead of .554? At that point it just comes to the point of properly tabulating the positive offensive contributions and minus the negative ones to see which is better...and isn't really an opinion.
Freddie Freeman strikes out a ton but he does all the other stuff needed as a hitter. Rich Dauer never struck out, but he didn't do much with the ball when he hit it, hence why he is nowhere near as good a hitter as Freeman despite hitting the ball more often. On Dauer's team, Ripken, Murray, and Singleton all struck out more, but they were immensely better hiters.
I am not talking about moving runners, sac flies or anything else. only that I think it is easier for a hitter who makes more contact to get out of a slump. a good part of baseball is mental and a dribbler up the middle has at times gotten guys off a cold streak. confidence is a huge thing in sports. when you are already down, nothing is more demoralizing than another K
How do you know a strikeout is more demoralizing to a hitter? They may not care and just view it as an out. I find it demorazlizing when George Brett was tapping out to the second baseman so much. I wanted an astroturf double splitting the outfielders.
Missing a c*&$ shot and flying out is more demoralizing.
How come Rich Dauer's contact ability didn't get him out of a season long slump when he is hitting .260 with no power? If your theory is true, then he should have been propelled to many hot strikes since he barely struck out, and should have been hitting .365 then. The 1982 Orioles could have use 35 home runs and an extra 50 walks from of Dauer and gladly traded converting 120 ground ball outs into 120 strikeouts for it. They would have won the division.
A lot of great responses but I think I would want Teddy Ballgame. I know he only ever played in one WS but overall, I like his chances. He did hit a homer in his last at bat after all.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
How do you know a strikeout is more demoralizing to a hitter? They may not care and just view it as an out. I find it demorazlizing when George Brett was tapping out to the second baseman so much. I wanted an astroturf double splitting the outfielders.
Missing a c*&$ shot and flying out is more demoralizing.
How come Rich Dauer's contact ability didn't get him out of a season long slump when he is hitting .260 with no power? If your theory is true, then he should have been propelled to many hot strikes since he barely struck out, and should have been hitting .365 then. The 1982 Orioles could have use 35 home runs and an extra 50 walks from of Dauer and gladly traded converting 120 ground ball outs into 120 strikeouts for it. They would have won the division.
How do I know? well... I played the game, I have been around many others who have played the game and at high levels.
It does not matter how demoralized YOU feel when Brett taps out to 2nd or strikes out, it matters to him. that is the whole point here.
I love stats as much as the next guy, but there is a mental part to this game. confidence is a factor. There are no percentages or averages to measure confidence, but it is there, and it matters.
that is why, if you read the very end of my post, I added that this is anecdotal.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
How do you know a strikeout is more demoralizing to a hitter? They may not care and just view it as an out. I find it demorazlizing when George Brett was tapping out to the second baseman so much. I wanted an astroturf double splitting the outfielders.
Missing a c*&$ shot and flying out is more demoralizing.
How come Rich Dauer's contact ability didn't get him out of a season long slump when he is hitting .260 with no power? If your theory is true, then he should have been propelled to many hot strikes since he barely struck out, and should have been hitting .365 then. The 1982 Orioles could have use 35 home runs and an extra 50 walks from of Dauer and gladly traded converting 120 ground ball outs into 120 strikeouts for it. They would have won the division.
How do I know? well... I played the game, I have been around many others who have played the game and at high levels.
It does not matter how demoralized YOU feel when Brett taps out to 2nd or strikes out, it matters to him. that is the whole point here.
I love stats as much as the next guy, but there is a mental part to this game. confidence is a factor. There are no percentages or averages to measure confidence, but it is there, and it matters.
that is why, if you read the very end of my post, I added that this is anecdotal.
I played it as well, and still can very well Striking out doesn't demoralize me. In fact, no out does. Have to be mentally stronger than that.
So you are putting your thoughts into how batters feel and how much it affects them. In today's game especially, striking out is just par for the course and most likely doesn't demoralize anyone.
A bloop single 'could' get you out of a slump. It could equally NOT get you out of a slump too.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I think you need a new avatar: The Straw Man!!
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I never assumed anything about YOU playing baseball well or not. surprisingly, not every comment people make is about you. (I am sure you were just a fantastic baseball player)
and again, your second paragraph just proves you missed the point again. you keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over...
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I don't think this has been said explicitly in this thread but it's very important. The players who "make contact" and therefore make more ground outs also ground into more double plays than the better hitters who always hit it hard and strike out when they don't hit it. GIDP is the reason that Bill Buckner, with his 100 OPS+, was not an average hitter but rather a below average hitter.
"Value" as a hitter can be defined at a high level as bases/outs; how many bases did you advance yourself and your teammates who were no base, and how many outs did you use up to do it. A strikeout is 0 bases / 1 out; a GIDP is -1 bases / 2 outs. The effect over the course of a season or a career is significant, and a comparison of two hitters, one of the Trout variety and one of the Buckner variety, will be significantly off if GIDP aren't accounted for.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
If you are a "stat" person (I like them OK) show us how often a strikeout ever enables a positive offensive result, _and NOT when the defense makes an error.
_
Even a weak ground ball can advance a runner, pop ups not so much, but I have seen players tag up and advance on them occasionally.
Nobody ever won a World Series by striking out.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
No, GIDP are the worst. Finding a single instance in the history of baseball where a GIDP turned out to be a game winner does not wipe out the thousands of times when a GIDP ended a game that would have continued if the batter had struck out instead. Also, in your single example, had the batter who GIDP struck out instead, then another batter would have had a chance to bat and might have won the game anyway.
I hope your post was a joke, but the negative value of a GIDP is so significant, and so often overlooked, that I don't want anyone to be confused.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
If you are a "stat" person (I like them OK) show us how often a strikeout ever enables a positive offensive result, _and NOT when the defense makes an error.
_
Even a weak ground ball can advance a runner, pop ups not so much, but I have seen players tag up and advance on them occasionally.
Nobody ever won a World Series by striking out.
You are correct Joe. Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter in the game of baseball. There isn't even any room for debate on that subject. When a batter strikes out, there is zero probability of getting a hit, advancing a runner, or a fielder making an error.
When a batter makes contact, there is a 25 to 30 percent chance he will get a hit. There is a 60-70 percent chance he will make a single out, and there is a 1-10 percent chance a fielder will make an error or he will hit into a double play.
The question isn't which is worse, striking out or hitting into a double play. The question is what is worse, striking out or
making contact ? The obvious answer is making contact is better than striking out.
Someone made a comment about Bill Buckner above, and that comment was aimed at grounding in double plays is worse than striking out. Being that he mentioned Bill Buckner, my question to everyone here is would it have been better if Mookie Wilson struck out with two outs in the bottom of the 10th in the 1986 World Series, or would it have been better if Mookie Wilson made contact and hit a sharp ground ball to first base where Bill Buckner was fielding an easy ground ball ?
But what if there was only 1 out in that inning Mr. Poster above ? I'm guessing you still think because there were runners on base that Wilson striking out would have been better than making contact and hitting a ball to first base ?
Buckner could have picked up that ball, stepped on first, and thrown Ray Knight out at home trying to score the game winning run to end the inning. Not saying it would have happened, but I've seen that play executed many times before.
So it certainly would have been best for Wilson to strike out if there was 1 out in the inning than to hit a sharp ground ball to first base, correct ?
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I think you need a new avatar: The Straw Man!!
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I never assumed anything about YOU playing baseball well or not. surprisingly, not every comment people make is about you. (I am sure you were just a fantastic baseball player)
and again, your second paragraph just proves you missed the point again. you keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over...
Wait until you get to the point where he posts things that you never even said. That guy is on serious ignore.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I think you need a new avatar: The Straw Man!!
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I never assumed anything about YOU playing baseball well or not. surprisingly, not every comment people make is about you. (I am sure you were just a fantastic baseball player)
and again, your second paragraph just proves you missed the point again. you keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over...
Wait until you get to the point where he posts things that you never even said. That guy is on serious ignore.
I know. the guy sure did come in hot. kind of like a politician with talking points. his ears turn off and he repeatedly posts the same gigantic wall of words over and over and over and over...
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I.
You sure did . There isn't even a need to state what you did or didn't play. The post is about MLB strikeouts and their impact....so what you played is irrelevant. How you internalize what it feels like, or what it feels like for others, after a strikeout is irrelevant and inaccurate. So, yes, you did post it triumphantly.
No regurgitating...thats just what it is. If Chicago is north of Florida and I keep saying it is north, it is because it is north of Florida, just like striking out and grounding out with nobody on are the same value...an out.
@JoeBanzai said:
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
If you are a "stat" person (I like them OK) show us how often a strikeout ever enables a positive offensive result, _and NOT when the defense makes an error.
_
Even a weak ground ball can advance a runner, pop ups not so much, but I have seen players tag up and advance on them occasionally.
Nobody ever won a World Series by striking out.
I think I clarified that a hundred times...so if I'm accused of regurgitating, then so be it. "A strikeout and an non-strikeout out, IN WHICH NO RUNNERS ADVANCE, are of the exact same value."
Everyone should be giving PROPER credit to outs that advance baserunners, as they should be. Problem is, most other people don't give anywhere near the proper credit and that is why they come to conclusions that George Brett is a better hitter than Schmidt, etc...
Once all those bases advanced by outs are accounted for....and the double play outs a player creates are accounted for, you will see that overall strikeouts hurt about 2% more than non strikeout outs. Just common sense alone tells you that since just over half of your at bats come with nobody on, that automaticslly, half of your strikeouts are of ZERO difference to another player's contact outs. Then you go down the 'food chain' where some are more damaging...but those amount of situations don't happen as often in games, so the impact is lessened even though there is a bigger difference between striking out and contact out there.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya . I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I think you need a new avatar: The Straw Man!!
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I never assumed anything about YOU playing baseball well or not. surprisingly, not every comment people make is about you. (I am sure you were just a fantastic baseball player)
and again, your second paragraph just proves you missed the point again. you keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over...
Wait until you get to the point where he posts things that you never even said. That guy is on serious ignore.
I know. the guy sure did come in hot. kind of like a politician with talking points. his ears turn off and he repeatedly posts the same gigantic wall of words over and over and over and over...
He is the master of the Straw Man argument
Probably because the posts I'm refuting are 'composite' posts that have been used for years, drawing their conclusions from the same pool of inaccuracies. That pool is dwindling, but seems a lot of people still swim there.
As you can see, you still have the notion that 'some' baseball hitters have a 'gene' in their body that allows them to hit like Babe Ruth in the Post season, even though they only hit like a mortal in the regular season.
Or why Reggie Jackson's post season gene only allows him to do great in the world series but be downright AWFUL in the LCS.
What kind of gene does Lenny Dykstra have where his better than Mickey Mantle in the World Series, but only chooses to play like Lenny Dykstra all year?? Is it a stupid gene?.... because you would have to be pretty dumb to know you have this 'ability' in the World Series, but then choose not to use it all year in the regular season and get to MORE post seasons.
Someone claims George Brett saves his best hitting for the best pitchers....then why is his hitting in the LCS better than the World Series...and why doesn't he use that post season gene for catching ground balls in the LCS??
Then I have to ask, if George Brett ONLY hits great when it is post season, then why doesn't he hit those same pitchers as good when it is in the regular season?? Or why does he choose to hit worse against bad pitchers(which is incorrect because Brett overall hits better vs worse pitchers than he does elite pitchers, so the notion is wrong to begin with).
So, I can go on and on with a wall of words, because I've encountered these notions for years and have shot them down for years....and since I'm still having fun with it, will continue at my leisure.
In the end, no matter how someone internalizes their feelings toward Mike Trout striking out, Trout is still the best player in MLB the last 10 years by a wide margin, proper strikeout value included....so feel away.
@JoeBanzai said:
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
If you are a "stat" person (I like them OK) show us how often a strikeout ever enables a positive offensive result, _and NOT when the defense makes an error.
_
Even a weak ground ball can advance a runner, pop ups not so much, but I have seen players tag up and advance on them occasionally.
Nobody ever won a World Series by striking out.
Not exactly true since a dropped third strike in the 1941 World Series led the rally to win.
However, it is good to tabulate each of those instances where a base was advanced on an out. That needs to be done for every play in history to claim its value. It actually has been done, so it isn't a mystery. But I like that exercise as a start.
NOW, do the same exercise for base on balls and see how many times they advanced a runner or scored themselves....that has been done too
Or look for the hyperbole and cite Mike Davis's two out walk in the 1988 World Series that allowed Kirk Gibson to even get a chance to step up to the plate. Then you see the dual value of a walk instead of making an out....it allows another batter to bat and you get on base and can score runs.
Even Gene Tenace scores on walks. Go through his 1975 and 1976 seasons and tabulate each walk that advanced a base runner and each walk where he actually scored, and then see what damage was done with two outs after he walked, because the inning was extended with the walk. Then do that exercise for every single player in MLB and begin to see the value it has....which is appx 2/3 the value of a single overall.
Of course, anyone with common sense would know that a walk with nobody on is every bit as valuable as a single with nobody on....and with a tick more than half your at bats coming with nobody on, you know automatically that half your walks are of the same credit to your 'batting average' as if you hit a single.
In the end, you see why Mike Schmidt was so much a better hitter than Brett and why Trout is being discussed as an early GOAT contender(with more to prove for sure).
Nothing is worse than striking out! Nothing good ever comes from it.
A hitters job is to hit the ball, if he can't do that he is failing at his objective.
Yes, "Value" will say that a screaming line drive caught by the first baseman who then doubles off the runner is two outs and a strikeout is only one DUH.
Pitcher vs batter. Mano a mano. The worst thing the batter can do is whiff.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
>
Just wanted you to clarify that Terry Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You have clarified that he is, so I'm satisfied. Forster is a pitcher just so you know.
Enjoy your day. No more questions....or answers to questions.
Yeah. I know. Chicago White Sox. Even though I like Wilbur Wood over Forster.
If Forsters major league average was better than George Brett's, then he had better success at the plate in his major league baseball history than Brett did when it came to average. You did not ask about doubles, triples, singles, or home runs. You just mentioned average. Based on the historical data, Forster had a better average.
So basically you are asking because you feel that average is the sole indicator of who is better.
Why would you ask such a question only using average.
I did answer your question in saying yes, Forster does have better historical batting average data than Brett.
You said he is a better hitter. Why you only use average is strange to me. I guess you just don't
understand some of the more complex ways to analyze hitters.
Have a good one.
I'll let you ponder deeper why I asked that question....but I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
But why rag on Gene Tenace if you understand that there are other more important aspects to hitting, such as OB% and SLG%? Either Tenace is really good or batting average is a bad measurement. Which is it???
Terry Forster has a lifetime OPS of .887
George Brett has a lifetime OPS of .857
I completely DISAGREE with your assessment that Forster is a better batting average hitter than George Brett. You are welcome to say it, and I won't argue with it....but I disagree with that notion. I'm sure Darin may not like your assessment.
But I am glad to see that you are starting to recognize that batting average is not that great of a measurement at hitting. A lot of people think otherwise....so some progress at least.
So if we look deeper at a more complex way of measurement like you want, Forster has a better OPS than Brett....so is Forster a better hitter in that more complex measurement??
So I have to ask, if you are familiar with merit of the more complex measurements and recognize park factors(like you bring up with Santo), then why is it such a silly notion when someone says Gene Tenace is better hitter than Buster Posey when Tenace has a lifetime 136 OPS+ and Posey is only at 128?? For a complex analyst as you claim you are, that doesn't seem so silly, does it?
In World Series play Tenace has a lifetime .879 OPS. Posey has a World Series OPS of .616.
So what leg do you have to stand on to claim Posey being in the same universe as Tenace based on all the things you claim are important?
You can disagree all you want that Forster is not a better batting average hitter than Brett, but if the lifetime statistics show that his average was higher than Brett's, then it is what it is.
I always recognized that batting average is only a small piece of analyzing hitting greatness.
If Forster has a better OPS than Brett, then he does. Nothing we can do about it. Doesn't mean he was a better
all around hitter than Brett. All it tells us is that he had a higher OPS.
I did not say that Buster Posey is a better hitting catcher than Gene Tenace. Try to slow down and understand what you read. I said that Buster Posey was a better catcher than Gene Tenace. That includes both offense and defense. If you understood defensive metrics for catchers, you would find out that Posey edges out Tenace in the overall catcher category.
Tenace has a slight edge in hitting due to his ability to draw walks, but Posey is a better defensive catcher, much better, which gives him the edge.
Tenace is a better performer during the postseason in offense. Posey is a better performer in the postseason on defense.
I would take Posey during the regular season, and play Tenace in the postseason, and probably bring in Posey in late innings off the bench to replace Tenace for defensive purposes.
Counting the defense and the advanced measurements you speak of, Tenace has a higher lifetime WAR than Posey, so it looks like when you incorporate all you speak of, that Tenace still comes out on top.
So defense counts in the post season now? You completely discounted it when it came to Brett. So then now you can apply all those errors Brett made in the LCS. Ok. Just making sure.
And can you verify that the defensive advantage that Posey had in the WS is enough to overcome that large offensive advantage that Tenace had?
So I ask again, you said it is silly for someone to even suggest Tenace was better than Posey, but yet the stuff you speak of, Tenace was actually better by your own measurements.
You may want tighten your methods up a bit.
You don't understand the defensive metrics the way I understand them. Posey blows Tenace away in defensive wins above replacement. It's not even close.
I never said I discounted Brett's defense in the postseason.
You know what. I'm actually tired of talking to you. Your mind is all over the place and you tell people they say
things when they never said them. I actually now find you a little disturbed in your mind.
That's ok. Someone else will enjoy chatting with you, but if you find that people avoid you because you tell them
they said things that they didn't say, then you can thank me, because it seems to be a big problem with you.
You completely discounted Brett's defense.
Tenace has a higher overall WAR than Posey, so your notion of Posey being better using the advanced metrics is inaccurate....yet you made fun of someone else for even suggesting that Tenace was better than Posey. Which is it?
You made this whole big deal about what they do in the post season that defines who is better. Tenace blew Posey away in the post season. Make up your mind.
Yawn, nothing like taking a fun question and turning it into train wreck.
BTW, Gwynn, 'cuz he rarely struck out swinging or looking, and would be a good bet to put the ball into play.
If we're going off of small sample sizes, the answer is Barry Bonds. .700 OBP and 1.994 OPS in the World Series.
Mickey Mantle could switch hit in case the manager wants to play matchups, he could drag bunt and had good speed and obviously had solid HR power, too, including in the World Series.
That’s quite a lot of ways to get the guy in from third...😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Ron Santo. Santo doesn't have a single postseason at bat - not one! - in which he did not hit a home run.
In my opinion, there are a few facts and and ideas that stick out to me.
In baseball, we all know about the hot streak and the slump. The larger the sample size, you can make your assessments.
But we also know about the clutch hitter. The guy who had a down game, series, year, whatever, but is more clutch.
In my opinion you either believe in these things or you don't, and that goes a long way towards fleshing out these discussions for me. Because you could just say, in answer to the OP's question, whichever hitter is hottest at that moment on that team. Or you can think about the guy who got hot at the right time and isn't in a slump at that moment.
So is the guy inserted into that moment or he is there organically?
Let me know if what I'm talking about makes sense to any of you, and possibly help me along in this. 😂
I've read everybody's picks and reasoning and I'm still sticking with the professional pinch hitter and rolling the dice with Gates Brown. One at bat. One time
Brown still ranks as one of the best pinch-hitters in Major League Baseball history and was never better than in 1968, when he led the Tigers with a .370 batting average and lofty 1.127 OPS while picking up six homers, 15 RBIs and 12 walks.
In 92 official at-bats, Brown struck out just four times.
Many of Brown's hits came when the game was the line, starting with the second game of the season when his pinch-hit home run in the bottom of the ninth inning gave the Tigers a 4-3 win over Boston. It was his first at-bat of the season.
Brown pinch-hit 39 times in 1968 and had a .450 batting average in those situations, belting three home runs among nine extra base hits. He struck out just one time while pinch-hitting.
Some of the numbers he put up bordered on incredible.
In 16 eighth-inning at bats in '68, Brown had a .611 batting average.
In 17 ninth-inning at-bats, he hit .412 with two homers and six RBIs.
In 40 combined at-bats during the seventh, eighth and ninth innings, he batted .475 with two home runs and six RBIs.
In 36 at-bats that came after the seventh inning or beyond -- including extra innings -- he batted .488 with four homers among 10 extra-base hits and 10 RBIs.
Finally, in 22 at-bats during the first three innings of games in 1968, Brown hit .143.
If those statistics don't define clutch, what does?
Brown still holds the American League record for pinch hits (107) and pinch-hit home runs (16), according to the Baseball Almanac, which lists his 414 career pinch-hit at-bats as an MLB record.
Brown first came to the attention of the Tigers while playing prison baseball as an inmate in the Ohio State Reformatory, where he was serving time after being convicted of armed robbery
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Gates Brown hit 6 HR in 92 ABs and drove in 15 runs, which was very impressive in 1968. But do you know who hit 7 HR in 88 ABs and drove in 17 runs that year? Tigers pitcher Earl Wilson. Even though they beat the Cardinals in the World Series, I can't help but be a fan of the '68 Tigers. So many great stories.
It's foolish to think that there are two types of streaks when it comes to hitting. The hot streaks and the cold streaks.
We all know the story of Yaz going 0 for 4 in Game 1 of the 1967 World Series. The next day he asked for an extra hour in batting practice before game 2. Not only did he go 3 for 4 in Game 2, but he finished the series hitting .400.
Hitting is not only about preparation, but it's also about being over matched by better pitching. Yaz went 0 for 4 against Bob Gibson in Game 1. He went 2 for 4 against Gibson the next time he faced him.
Hitting can go in streaks, but a good streak comes when a good hitter is well prepared, comfortable at the plate, and not over matched by a great pitcher. A few Randy Johnson's and Sandy Koufax's can put a few hitters in a slump right away.
Great hitters like Ortiz, Brett, and others who hit well in the regular season and postseason are not susceptible to cold streaks like lesser hitters like Schmidt because they are just better hitters, and not over matched by better pitchers.
Goose Gossage was the most feared pitcher during a stretch of his career, and George Brett owned him.
Mariano Rivera was the most feared pitcher during a stretch of his career, and Ortiz could take care of him.
HItting is about preparation, and being able to recognize a curve ball, and being a better hitter than others.
Was the reason Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux consistently got 2 points per game during their entire career because they were streaky good, or was it because they were just superior to the other skaters and goalies, and saw a lot of power play time ?
Was Jim Brown streaky good, or was he just able to dominate over the competition ?
How about tennis ? Is it about streaks, or is it about superior playing ability ?
How about Golf ? Is it about preparation, focus, and skill, or is it about what kind of luck you're having that day ?
Sports is all about mental and physical preparation, good health, and ability. Either you have it, or you don't.
Talking about streaks takes all the responsibility off the athlete, and puts on some mystical fantasy that doesn't
exist.
What can be proven in baseball and is accepted by everyone is that good pitching will beat good hitting, and great
hitting will beat good pitching. But what is more important is whether that pitcher or hitter on game day is A. Healthy
B. Well rested and well prepared C. Focused and determined for success D. Not over matched E. Working on his or her weaknesses in his or her sport to get better F. Not having family issues to distract their focus
A good pitcher has a bad day on the mound. What's the first thing you hear from the announcer ? He didn't have
his good stuff tonight. He couldn't locate with his fastball or change up. It has nothing to do with a streak. It has to do
with is the pitcher loose ? Is he feeling good with the grip on the ball ? Does he need more pine tar on his fingers ? Is his elbow in the correct position ? Is the mound giving him trouble ? Is he hung over from last night ?
It's very simple. Did Wade Boggs turn from an average fielding third baseman to a slightly above average fielding third baseman because he became streaky good ? Or was it because he worked hard at his trait ?
Does fielding in baseball go in streaks too ? Or is it just hitting ? If hitting is streaky, then why isn't fielding ?
I just have to laugh at people who talk about small sample size. I was a good hitter in my day.
I was going 3-4 against average pitching, and going 1-4 when it came state tournament time. It's that simple.
You put an average pitcher on the mound and it was time to feast. You put a kid on the mound who threw 88 and above
and it was going to be a challenging day at the plate.
People who talk about small sample size must have never played the game at a high level. You either had the skill
and worked hard at the skill and found success more times than not, or you didn't have the skill and you struggled.
It separates the big leaguers from the minor leaguers.
It's not that Barry was good. It's just that he was on a good streak. Had nothing to do with him over matching good pitching.
Had nothing to do with him being totally focused in the moment, totally confident in his skills, totally well prepared, well rested, studying film of the pitchers he was going to face. Spending extra time in the batters box below the stadium.
Nah. It had to do with the "mystical streak".
@Goldenage
Over 162 games, I do think most guys tend to run hot and cold. There are a select few players - most of those being discussed and they are the best of the best - who are more consistent and less susceptible to going cold.
But as a Rotisserie baseball player for 20 years, I can tell you that most players will accrue the vast majority of their stats for the season in short periods of time interspersed by long periods of being unproductive.
I would agree that some of it is tied to physical and mental health but some of it is just the way baseball works, I think.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Moonlight Graham . . . he is due !
with all the talk about strikeouts, both here and in other threads, and now the talk about hitting streaks (both hot and cold) I will put my .02 out there.
there are times when hitters get streaky. some more than others. there has been talk that strikeouts are no worse than rollers to the 2nd baseman or pop ups etc. there are times, anecdotally, when hitters have been mired in a 3 week slump and a 5 hopper up the middle sneaks by the SS and something ignites in the hitter and they are out of a cold streak. whether it is a confidence thing or just luck, I don't know, but I think we all have seen it happen to guys.
the difference between a guy who strikes out 175 times a season and a guy who grounds out that many times is that the strikeout will never have a chance to roll between the 1st and 2nd baseman to get a hitter out of a cold streak.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I respect this statement, but I disagree with it. My thumb bothered me just like Dustin Pedroia's thumb bothered him. Both of us got hit by a pitch. Manager kept both of us in the lineup because the replacement wasn't better than an unhealthy Perdroia or me. I went on a cold streak just like Dustin did. Poor health.
Red Sox had a very promising young hitter named Tony C. who was awesome until he had an eye injury after getting hit in the head. Never was the same. Did he go on a prolonged bad streak, or was it due to poor health ?
Curt Schilling was a very consistent pitcher in the playoffs. He took notes. He was well prepared. Even a little bit of poor ankle health couldn't stop him because of his determination to shut up 50 thousand fans in Yankee stadium. The guy
was a mental monster when it came to competition, and he was very well prepared.
Manny Ramirez always watched video. David Ortiz did as well. Ortiz became a much better hitter in Boston after he
changed his swing that he had in Minnesota. Totally revamped his career.
Injuries, poor health, family issues, too much partying between games, not watching enough video on your own swing mechanics. Not practicing those mechanics every day. Not being overmatched by better pitching. This all comes into
account as to whether a hitter will be consistently good, or go hot and cold.
It has nothing to do with a mystical streak. It has everything to do with preparation, health, focus, determination,
and whether or not your major league hitting ability is better than major league pitching.
All players in the postseason are responsible for their performance. Small sample size has absolutely nothing
to do with it. It's all about preparation, determination, and ability with good mental and physical health.
@Goldenage
I sucked at baseball; at least now I know why!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
But if the hitter is already getting those hits and striking out and still hitting .300. Doesn't mater if he is striking out or popping out. Same thing.
If you are hitting .190 you obviously need to put the bat on the ball more if you are striking out because by nature, hitting 100 more balls in play should net a few extra fall for hits. However, if you are already a .300 hitter with power, then merely tryinig to put the ball in play may get you a few extra hits, but could prevent you from hitting harder hit balls for home runs....and then prevent walks too.
If you continue to hit .190 with no power, with or without striking out, doesn't matter, you are terrible, and won't be around very long.
Take Javy Baez. He has 18 strikeouts to one walk and hitting .220. If he is doing that while batting .220 and slugging .463, he will still have a job since he is a SS, but he is nothing to write home about. In his near MVP season he struck out 167 times and walked 29 times. He has horrible plate discipline, but his near MVP year he still managed to hit .290 and slug .554, hence why he almost won MVP. That strikeouts don't matter other than how many times a guy happens to move a runner up on a batted ball out(which doesn't happen all the time).
Would Cub fans love to see Baez lay off those breaking pitches and get more hits. Of course. Can he? I'm not so sure. Sometimes that is just what you are. Wouuld people be happier if Baez struck out 100 times less and hit .310 and SLUG .450 instead of .554? At that point it just comes to the point of properly tabulating the positive offensive contributions and minus the negative ones to see which is better...and isn't really an opinion.
Freddie Freeman strikes out a ton but he does all the other stuff needed as a hitter. Rich Dauer never struck out, but he didn't do much with the ball when he hit it, hence why he is nowhere near as good a hitter as Freeman despite hitting the ball more often. On Dauer's team, Ripken, Murray, and Singleton all struck out more, but they were immensely better hiters.
I am not talking about moving runners, sac flies or anything else. only that I think it is easier for a hitter who makes more contact to get out of a slump. a good part of baseball is mental and a dribbler up the middle has at times gotten guys off a cold streak. confidence is a huge thing in sports. when you are already down, nothing is more demoralizing than another K
anecdotal, but it happens.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
How do you know a strikeout is more demoralizing to a hitter? They may not care and just view it as an out. I find it demorazlizing when George Brett was tapping out to the second baseman so much. I wanted an astroturf double splitting the outfielders.
Missing a c*&$ shot and flying out is more demoralizing.
How come Rich Dauer's contact ability didn't get him out of a season long slump when he is hitting .260 with no power? If your theory is true, then he should have been propelled to many hot strikes since he barely struck out, and should have been hitting .365 then. The 1982 Orioles could have use 35 home runs and an extra 50 walks from of Dauer and gladly traded converting 120 ground ball outs into 120 strikeouts for it. They would have won the division.
A lot of great responses but I think I would want Teddy Ballgame. I know he only ever played in one WS but overall, I like his chances. He did hit a homer in his last at bat after all.
How do I know? well... I played the game, I have been around many others who have played the game and at high levels.
It does not matter how demoralized YOU feel when Brett taps out to 2nd or strikes out, it matters to him. that is the whole point here.
I love stats as much as the next guy, but there is a mental part to this game. confidence is a factor. There are no percentages or averages to measure confidence, but it is there, and it matters.
that is why, if you read the very end of my post, I added that this is anecdotal.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Rich Dauer was a career .257 hitter. he was not mired in a career long .260 slump. that is what he was. a .260 hitter. a slump for him may be 20 games when he hits .125. him getting out of a slump would bring himself back up to his mean.
tony gwynn in a slump may be hitting .250 for a month. slumps are all relative to the skill of the hitter.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I played it as well, and still can very well
Striking out doesn't demoralize me. In fact, no out does. Have to be mentally stronger than that.
So you are putting your thoughts into how batters feel and how much it affects them. In today's game especially, striking out is just par for the course and most likely doesn't demoralize anyone.
A bloop single 'could' get you out of a slump. It could equally NOT get you out of a slump too.
You didn't get the point though, if making contact gets you out of slumps, then the fact that Dauer makes so much more contact, then his slumps should be extremely short lived and he wouldn't be a .260 hitter. So avoiding striking simply DOES NOT get you out of slumps. Your ability as a hitter is what does that.
Right, so in the end, how many singles, doubles, triples, Home Runs, walks, and outs made is what matters.
Applying some extra value to making contact, other than what is obvious and logically seen and measured correctly, is foolish.
I love when guys use stats to refute other stats that don't fit any sense of logic or common sense, and then say, "I played the game." I played it too and still can. I'll play catch wtih ya
. I've coached it as well. So what.
In the end, if you strike out or ground out and no runners advance....they are the exact same thing.
If you ground out 600 times and never get a hit, then you suck. If you hit .310 and SLUG .610 and strike out 300 times, you are infinitely better than the guy who never struck out and never got a hit.
If you hit .310/.410/.600 and strike out 150 times and another guy hits .310/.410/.600 and only strikes out 50 times, then he may have you by about a 1% advantage.
Baseball hitting stats are VERY easy to measure these values accurately. It is not like football or basketball where many more variables come into play in a very strong nature. Baseball defense has too many variables to measure accurately too.
Baseball hitting is one of the few things that statistics measures to a very high degree of certainty. The only thing that muddles it is park factors, career, length or eras they played in.
A strikeout with nobody on is the exact same thing as a ground ball out with nobody on. Any type of 'conjecture' or anecdotes to say otherwise is just foolishness.....regardless if you played T-ball or MLB baseball. But if it is such a big deal to have played the game to some degree like you said you did...I'll be happy to have a catch with you.
I played baseball also, and I always liked to at least ground out if I had to go down. Striking out was embarrassing.
you REALLY want to be right, don't you? like in every single situation. you are missing the point entirely and I just don't have the desire to bicker with you.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There really isn't any gray area in the subject or anything to bicker about. You made some triumphant proclamation that you played to try and support your point and assumed I didn't play or can't play, and you were incorrect.
If anyone wants to be jovial when they ground out or pop out and view it as a success because they did not strike out, then great, but it won't make you a better hitter. In the end, all it matters is your contributions in walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs made(guys that make MORE outs do hurt you more, so you guys are correct when saying that about strikeouts...except don't forget the damage caused by the ground outs or pop outs too).
I think you need a new avatar: The Straw Man!!
I didn't make a triumphant proclamation. good grief. you asked me how I knew something, and I gave you an anecdotal answer. there was nothing triumphant about it. that's all you bud.
I never assumed anything about YOU playing baseball well or not. surprisingly, not every comment people make is about you. (I am sure you were just a fantastic baseball player)
and again, your second paragraph just proves you missed the point again. you keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't think this has been said explicitly in this thread but it's very important. The players who "make contact" and therefore make more ground outs also ground into more double plays than the better hitters who always hit it hard and strike out when they don't hit it. GIDP is the reason that Bill Buckner, with his 100 OPS+, was not an average hitter but rather a below average hitter.
"Value" as a hitter can be defined at a high level as bases/outs; how many bases did you advance yourself and your teammates who were no base, and how many outs did you use up to do it. A strikeout is 0 bases / 1 out; a GIDP is -1 bases / 2 outs. The effect over the course of a season or a career is significant, and a comparison of two hitters, one of the Trout variety and one of the Buckner variety, will be significantly off if GIDP aren't accounted for.
Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter.
Don't come back with hitting into a double play is worse.
1962 World Series Game 7 only run of game scores on a double play, winning the series for the Yankees.
Strikeouts are the worst!
If you are a "stat" person (I like them OK) show us how often a strikeout ever enables a positive offensive result, _and NOT when the defense makes an error.
_
Even a weak ground ball can advance a runner, pop ups not so much, but I have seen players tag up and advance on them occasionally.
Nobody ever won a World Series by striking out.
No, GIDP are the worst. Finding a single instance in the history of baseball where a GIDP turned out to be a game winner does not wipe out the thousands of times when a GIDP ended a game that would have continued if the batter had struck out instead. Also, in your single example, had the batter who GIDP struck out instead, then another batter would have had a chance to bat and might have won the game anyway.
I hope your post was a joke, but the negative value of a GIDP is so significant, and so often overlooked, that I don't want anyone to be confused.
I told you not to do that.
You are correct Joe. Striking out is the worst thing you can do as a batter in the game of baseball. There isn't even any room for debate on that subject. When a batter strikes out, there is zero probability of getting a hit, advancing a runner, or a fielder making an error.
When a batter makes contact, there is a 25 to 30 percent chance he will get a hit. There is a 60-70 percent chance he will make a single out, and there is a 1-10 percent chance a fielder will make an error or he will hit into a double play.
The question isn't which is worse, striking out or hitting into a double play. The question is what is worse, striking out or
making contact ? The obvious answer is making contact is better than striking out.
Someone made a comment about Bill Buckner above, and that comment was aimed at grounding in double plays is worse than striking out. Being that he mentioned Bill Buckner, my question to everyone here is would it have been better if Mookie Wilson struck out with two outs in the bottom of the 10th in the 1986 World Series, or would it have been better if Mookie Wilson made contact and hit a sharp ground ball to first base where Bill Buckner was fielding an easy ground ball ?
But what if there was only 1 out in that inning Mr. Poster above ? I'm guessing you still think because there were runners on base that Wilson striking out would have been better than making contact and hitting a ball to first base ?
Buckner could have picked up that ball, stepped on first, and thrown Ray Knight out at home trying to score the game winning run to end the inning. Not saying it would have happened, but I've seen that play executed many times before.
So it certainly would have been best for Wilson to strike out if there was 1 out in the inning than to hit a sharp ground ball to first base, correct ?
Wait until you get to the point where he posts things that you never even said. That guy is on serious ignore.
Willie Stargell
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I know. the guy sure did come in hot. kind of like a politician with talking points. his ears turn off and he repeatedly posts the same gigantic wall of words over and over and over and over...
He is the master of the Straw Man argument
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You sure did
. There isn't even a need to state what you did or didn't play. The post is about MLB strikeouts and their impact....so what you played is irrelevant. How you internalize what it feels like, or what it feels like for others, after a strikeout is irrelevant and inaccurate. So, yes, you did post it triumphantly.
No regurgitating...thats just what it is. If Chicago is north of Florida and I keep saying it is north, it is because it is north of Florida, just like striking out and grounding out with nobody on are the same value...an out.
I think I clarified that a hundred times...so if I'm accused of regurgitating, then so be it. "A strikeout and an non-strikeout out, IN WHICH NO RUNNERS ADVANCE, are of the exact same value."
Everyone should be giving PROPER credit to outs that advance baserunners, as they should be. Problem is, most other people don't give anywhere near the proper credit and that is why they come to conclusions that George Brett is a better hitter than Schmidt, etc...
Once all those bases advanced by outs are accounted for....and the double play outs a player creates are accounted for, you will see that overall strikeouts hurt about 2% more than non strikeout outs. Just common sense alone tells you that since just over half of your at bats come with nobody on, that automaticslly, half of your strikeouts are of ZERO difference to another player's contact outs. Then you go down the 'food chain' where some are more damaging...but those amount of situations don't happen as often in games, so the impact is lessened even though there is a bigger difference between striking out and contact out there.
Probably because the posts I'm refuting are 'composite' posts that have been used for years, drawing their conclusions from the same pool of inaccuracies. That pool is dwindling, but seems a lot of people still swim there.
As you can see, you still have the notion that 'some' baseball hitters have a 'gene' in their body that allows them to hit like Babe Ruth in the Post season, even though they only hit like a mortal in the regular season.
Or why Reggie Jackson's post season gene only allows him to do great in the world series but be downright AWFUL in the LCS.
What kind of gene does Lenny Dykstra have where his better than Mickey Mantle in the World Series, but only chooses to play like Lenny Dykstra all year?? Is it a stupid gene?.... because you would have to be pretty dumb to know you have this 'ability' in the World Series, but then choose not to use it all year in the regular season and get to MORE post seasons.
Someone claims George Brett saves his best hitting for the best pitchers....then why is his hitting in the LCS better than the World Series...and why doesn't he use that post season gene for catching ground balls in the LCS??
Then I have to ask, if George Brett ONLY hits great when it is post season, then why doesn't he hit those same pitchers as good when it is in the regular season?? Or why does he choose to hit worse against bad pitchers(which is incorrect because Brett overall hits better vs worse pitchers than he does elite pitchers, so the notion is wrong to begin with).
So, I can go on and on with a wall of words, because I've encountered these notions for years and have shot them down for years....and since I'm still having fun with it, will continue at my leisure.
In the end, no matter how someone internalizes their feelings toward Mike Trout striking out, Trout is still the best player in MLB the last 10 years by a wide margin, proper strikeout value included....so feel away.
Not exactly true since a dropped third strike in the 1941 World Series led the rally to win.
However, it is good to tabulate each of those instances where a base was advanced on an out. That needs to be done for every play in history to claim its value. It actually has been done, so it isn't a mystery. But I like that exercise as a start.
NOW, do the same exercise for base on balls and see how many times they advanced a runner or scored themselves....that has been done too
Or look for the hyperbole and cite Mike Davis's two out walk in the 1988 World Series that allowed Kirk Gibson to even get a chance to step up to the plate. Then you see the dual value of a walk instead of making an out....it allows another batter to bat and you get on base and can score runs.
Even Gene Tenace scores on walks. Go through his 1975 and 1976 seasons and tabulate each walk that advanced a base runner and each walk where he actually scored, and then see what damage was done with two outs after he walked, because the inning was extended with the walk. Then do that exercise for every single player in MLB and begin to see the value it has....which is appx 2/3 the value of a single overall.
Of course, anyone with common sense would know that a walk with nobody on is every bit as valuable as a single with nobody on....and with a tick more than half your at bats coming with nobody on, you know automatically that half your walks are of the same credit to your 'batting average' as if you hit a single.
In the end, you see why Mike Schmidt was so much a better hitter than Brett and why Trout is being discussed as an early GOAT contender(with more to prove for sure).
Nothing is worse than striking out! Nothing good ever comes from it.
A hitters job is to hit the ball, if he can't do that he is failing at his objective.
Yes, "Value" will say that a screaming line drive caught by the first baseman who then doubles off the runner is two outs and a strikeout is only one DUH.
Pitcher vs batter. Mano a mano. The worst thing the batter can do is whiff.