you are the guy who talks and talks and talks, but doesn't take the time to listen to anyone else. you didn't even read my first post.
one last time.
A player who instead of striking out, hits ground balls, etc. will anecdotally be faster to get out of slumps because, on occasion, those grounders, dribblers, pop-ups will miss a fielder and roll through for a hit. string a couple of those together and some players will get out of a cold streak. a strike out will NEVER roll through the infield or drop in for a hit.
by definition, you have to hit your way out of a slump, otherwise, you are still in the slump. pretty hard to hit your way out of a slump when you are constantly striking out.
now I will prepare for your repeated wall of text...
I'd like to make one small point, and ask others to help me understand if I am looking at things in a sensible manner.
It appears to me that the type of hitter a player is plays a role in how you judge things like their strikeouts vs GIDP, etc. Some hitters seem to be just good contact hitters. They can get the ball into play, often through a gap or over an infielder. So for these guys taking a called third strike would be infuriating to a fan because they are up there to just make contact and put the ball into play. Because anything can happen if you just get a ball into play But other hitters, like Trout, are not that kind of hitter, so his called third strikes are perhaps the result of his looking for the right pitch to hit (which he does better than anyone).
If you simply MUST go down the analytical rabbit hole, a batter will most likely hit into far fewer double plays than he will strike out.
Killebrew, a slow runner for the last half of his career, struck out 7 time more often during his career than he hit into a DP. Even Jim Rice struck out 4.5 times for every GIDP.
BOTH of these guys finished their careers with a .500 SLG.
Hitting the ball is better than missing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
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.
A hitters job is to create runs, plain and simple. In that process they will strike out. If all you do is strike out, then you want have a job. If all you do is make contact and go .190/.222/.318, then you won't have a job.
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
If someone wants to say striking out never amounts to anything, they are wrong, because striking out is often the by product of swinging mostly at pitches that you can hit hard that turn into singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
If the goal was simply to make contact irregardless to where the ball goes after it is hit, then striking out would be awful....but that isn't the goal in playing baseball. The gooal is hitting the ball well enough to get on base and get extra bases.
If you think striking out is worse than a double play, then please coach against me and every time my guy hits into a double play, then you can void it and award my batter a strikeout instead and put my other guy back on first. I'll do that trade with you any day.
"If the goal was simply to make contact irregardless to where the ball goes after it is hit, then striking out would be awful"
the vast vast majority of modern players do not know where the ball is going after they hit it. If they did, the shift wouldn't be a thing, they would just hit around it. instead, they are loading up for fastballs and releasing looking for a high exit velo and trying to elevate the ball.
they are getting fooled on TONS of pitches, hence the huge K numbers.
there have always been power hitters who struck out a lot. BUT, every player on the field didn't think they were going to try to hit it over the shift and out of the park. that's part of the problem. everyone is trying to hit for power and everyone is not built for it.
everyone is stuck on GIDP. there are almost as many E made than GIDP each season. Those errors would not happen but for a batted ball. last year there were 1900 unearned runs due to errors. I don't have the time or inclination to crunch the numbers, but that has to make a large dent into the runs lost due to GIDP. possibly even out runs lost due to GIDP.
It would be hard to determine how many runs are lost due to GIPD as many are hypothetical runs, because we don't know what the alternative outcome would have been had a player not GIDP.
@doubledragon said:
It's game 7 of the World Series, runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, game tied. Who do you want in the batters box, any player in history?
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at third?
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@doubledragon said:
It's game 7 of the World Series, runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, game tied. Who do you want in the batters box, any player in history?
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at third?
😉
🤔 We'll compromise and say a runner with average speed.
@doubledragon said:
It's game 7 of the World Series, runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, game tied. Who do you want in the batters box, any player in history?
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at third?
😉
🤔 We'll compromise and say a runner with average speed.
Steve Balboni it is!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@doubledragon said:
It's game 7 of the World Series, runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, game tied. Who do you want in the batters box, any player in history?
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at third?
😉
🤔 We'll compromise and say a runner with average speed.
@doubledragon said:
It's game 7 of the World Series, runner on 3rd, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, game tied. Who do you want in the batters box, any player in history?
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at third?
😉
I forgot which thread this was and was speaking in general. in this scenario, worst possible outcome is indeed a strikeout....sorry for confusion fellas.
@JoeBanzai said:
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.
A hitters job is to create runs, plain and simple. In that process they will strike out. If all you do is strike out, then you want have a job. If all you do is make contact and go .190/.222/.318, then you won't have a job.
>
Hitting into a double play can create a run. Striking out? No.
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
>
Nobody is arguing that.
If someone wants to say striking out never amounts to anything, they are wrong, because striking out is often the by product of swinging mostly at pitches that you can hit hard that turn into singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
Striking out never amounts to anything.......fact. It's one of two things, swinging at bad pitches or the inability to hit a ball in the strike zone.
If the goal was simply to make contact irregardless to where the ball goes after it is hit, then striking out would be awful....but that isn't the goal in playing baseball. The gooal is hitting the ball well enough to get on base and get extra bases.
>
The goal is to produce runs as you said above. You cannot do that by failing to make contact. Ever.
If you think striking out is worse than a double play, then please coach against me and every time my guy hits into a double play, then you can void it and award my batter a strikeout instead and put my other guy back on first. I'll do that trade with you any day.
>
Your guys will all be striking out, so nobody will be on base. ;-)
Again, no one is arguing that. A hitter can strike out every time he comes to the plate, he cannot hit into a double play every time he comes up. Striking out is bad every time, hitting into a double play is usually worse, but sometimes better.
It's fairly common for a team to give up a run by turning a DP, especially early in a game. Sometimes you end up losing the game by one run.
Second example that I know of off hand; the Twins clinched the pennant in 1987 when a Twins infielder threw home instead of allowing the run and getting the DP.
Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but not all the time hitting into a DP is worse than striking out.
Striking out is always bad.
The percentage is much higher in determining a victory by advancing a guy to 3rd (and the next hitter/s driving him in), or driving him home when hitting into a double play, than in any scenario where a guy strikes out, unless the defense makes an error.
How many times does the defense screw up and turn a strikeout into something good? I'll bet it's a lot less than when a batter hits a "double play" ball where a catch a throw and another catch have to be made.
The same can be said when a batter hits a ground ball "behind" the runner and makes an out, better than a strikeout, even though they're both outs.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
>
Nobody is arguing that.
Exactly....making every single other thing you said absolutely meaningless. Period. All those things you cite are already credited to a batter.
All those small things you say are common sense and already acknowledges and credited to each batter when you look at their hitting resume. Problem is, you tend to make them bigger than they really are in an 'attempt' to make a contact hitter better than a superior hitter, such as in the case of Brett and Schmidt.
Because you know what is better than making a contact out that moves runner? Getting a hit or getting on base that moves a runner and ADDS another runner...without an out made.
Or maybe Bill Buckner really is better hitter than Killebrew since he struck out WAAAAAY less and had a higher average. Obviously he is not...but the high contact, high batting average guys DO think that.
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
>
Nobody is arguing that.
>
Exactly...making everything else you said absolutely meaningless. Period. Because this is all that matters.....
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
Or maybe Bill Buckner really is better hitter than Killebrew since he struck out WAAAAAY less and had a higher average. Obviously he is not...but the high contact, high batting average guys DO think that.
>
Now we're talking about who was the better hitter between Killebrerw and Buckner?
What's funny is when people here are wrong they change the subject.
I did look it up..........they both averaged about 16 GIDP per year, surprising that Harmon didn't hit into more.
Buckner made a lot less outs than Harmon. Harmon barely has more Total Bases per season than Bill. Harmon walked a LOT more, but that's not a hit, and the way Harm ran for a lot of his career, a walk to the "Killer" wasn't that great of a value.
Yes, if that's what you want to look at, Buckner was the "better" hitter.
What is kind of surprising is Buckner didn't score as many runs per year, might have had something to do with HR.
Killebrew had to wait 4 times to get into the HOF, while Rod Carew went in on the first time. Batting average must mean a LOT! ;-)
@dallasactuary said:
I showed this thread to a professor of logic and he died. True story.
That is not a true story, he didn't die, just had a heart attack.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As hysterical as the notion that Buckner was in the same talent universe as Killebrew as a hitter may be, this part of your response confused me so I'm worried I'm missing part of the joke.
Buckner came to the plate 204 more times than Killebrew in their careers, and Buckner made an out 747 more times. And you didn't say "less" you said "a lot less". I don't get it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Or maybe Bill Buckner really is better hitter than Killebrew since he struck out WAAAAAY less and had a higher average. Obviously he is not...but the high contact, high batting average guys DO think that.
>
Now we're talking about who was the better hitter between Killebrerw and Buckner?
What's funny is when people here are wrong they change the subject.
I did look it up..........they both averaged about 16 GIDP per year, surprising that Harmon didn't hit into more.
Buckner made a lot less outs than Harmon. Harmon barely has more Total Bases per season than Bill. Harmon walked a LOT more, but that's not a hit, and the way Harm ran for a lot of his career, a walk to the "Killer" wasn't that great of a value.
Yes, if that's what you want to look at, Buckner was the "better" hitter.
What is kind of surprising is Buckner didn't score as many runs per year, might have had something to do with HR.
Killebrew had to wait 4 times to get into the HOF, while Rod Carew went in on the first time. Batting average must mean a LOT! ;-)
@dallasactuary said:
I showed this thread to a professor of logic and he died. True story.
That is not a true story, he didn't die, just had a heart attack.
NO subject was changed at all. I clearly stated that "If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs," .....and you said nobody was arguing that, hence you agreed.
At that point, the rest of the nearly pointless stuff you added was irrelevant, because all those very little things are already accounted for in the better measurements and your opinion on their value or how often they happen is absolutely meaningless and completely wrong...but I felt like playing, much like I do with my cats, so I added a comment, the Buckner/Killebrew comparison.
You responded with a convoluted answer to it. I said, a lot of people claim that Bill Buckner is a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew because Buckner hits for a higher average and strikes out way less.
Do you agree that Buckner is a better hitter than Killebrew, or do yo agree that those people are severely overvaluing the negative impact of striking out and overvaluing the merits of batting average???
Simple question. Is Bill Buckner a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew? Yes or No. Requires zero other clarifications. He either is or isn't.
Because with the extremely high value you are placing on grounding out over striking out, you are backing up those people that say Buckner is better than Killebrew based on those faulty premises.
Just want you to cut to the chase, like you already agreed with what I said in quotes above(making the other points about 1% important). So we can continue to debate if grounding out is 1% better than striking out, or 2%, or you can just clarify it.
Before another convoluted answer comes I just want to make sure you know how many times your example of hitting into a double play to score a run actually occurred in MLB's last full season, 2019.
Bases loaded and nobody out....a grand total of 65 times.
1st and third and nobody out....a grand total of 53 times.
So out of the 186,517 plate appearances in the season, a total of 118 double plays had some type of 'positive' benefit. But if someone can't see the overall negative of hitting into a double play with the bases loaded and nobody out and walking away with only one run...you need a new sport to follow, even if it might be heavily beneficial one or two times. But even so, we will give you the tiny positive. Very impressive, lol.
So if it occurred only 118 times across the entire league, how many times exactly do you think a single player does that an entire year??? Impact = negligible...hence why it isn't even a both to consider in the scope of all the things that truly count: walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, OUTS MADE(ANY OUT. ALL OUTS SUCK except for the extremely rare instance).
Just so there is no confusion again....Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall.
There should be zero confusion as of this point. But I shall finish:
But what about the inning ending double plays??
Bases loaded and one out....159 double plays. So if you staked your claim on the few times a double play helped, then this alone completely erases that benefit, and then some.
1st and third and one out...185 double plays.
1st and 2nd one out....434 double plays
Man on 1st one out....1,326
Or the rally killer double plays?
Bases loaded nobody out....oh wait, that is your positive example. I usually counted that as a rally killer, My bad. lol.
Man on 1st nobody out...996
Man on 1st and 2nd nobody out...248
There is a reason why a double play is called a pitchers best friend. I thought that was universally known....but I guess I learn something new every day.
I should not need to expound, and I'm afraid I may have to.....but to quote my favorite cousin Vinny, "are you sure about that five minutes??!"
As hysterical as the notion that Buckner was in the same talent universe as Killebrew as a hitter may be, this part of your response confused me so I'm worried I'm missing part of the joke.
Buckner came to the plate 204 more times than Killebrew in their careers, and Buckner made an out 747 more times. And you didn't say "less" you said "a lot less". I don't get it.
Yeah, well you said a guy died.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Or maybe Bill Buckner really is better hitter than Killebrew since he struck out WAAAAAY less and had a higher average. Obviously he is not...but the high contact, high batting average guys DO think that.
>
Now we're talking about who was the better hitter between Killebrerw and Buckner?
What's funny is when people here are wrong they change the subject.
I did look it up..........they both averaged about 16 GIDP per year, surprising that Harmon didn't hit into more.
Buckner made a lot less outs than Harmon. Harmon barely has more Total Bases per season than Bill. Harmon walked a LOT more, but that's not a hit, and the way Harm ran for a lot of his career, a walk to the "Killer" wasn't that great of a value.
Yes, if that's what you want to look at, Buckner was the "better" hitter.
What is kind of surprising is Buckner didn't score as many runs per year, might have had something to do with HR.
Killebrew had to wait 4 times to get into the HOF, while Rod Carew went in on the first time. Batting average must mean a LOT! ;-)
@dallasactuary said:
I showed this thread to a professor of logic and he died. True story.
That is not a true story, he didn't die, just had a heart attack.
NO subject was changed at all. I clearly stated that "If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs," .....and you said nobody was arguing that, hence you agreed.
>
Why would I agree to that drivel. Has absolutely nothing to do with my statement, so I said I wasn't arguing about that.
At that point, the rest of the nearly pointless stuff you added was irrelevant, because all those very little things are already accounted for in the better measurements and your opinion on their value or how often they happen is absolutely meaningless and completely wrong...but I felt like playing, much like I do with my cats, so I added a comment, the Buckner/Killebrew comparison.
You responded with a convoluted answer to it. I said, a lot of people claim that Bill Buckner is a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew because Buckner hits for a higher average and strikes out way less.
Do you agree that Buckner is a better hitter than Killebrew, or do yo agree that those people are severely overvaluing the negative impact of striking out and overvaluing the merits of batting average???
Simple question. Is Bill Buckner a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew? Yes or No. Requires zero other clarifications. He either is or isn't.
Because with the extremely high value you are placing on grounding out over striking out, you are backing up those people that say Buckner is better than Killebrew based on those faulty premises.
Just want you to cut to the chase, like you already agreed with what I said in quotes above(making the other points about 1% important). So we can continue to debate if grounding out is 1% better than striking out, or 2%, or you can just clarify it.
Killebrew's obviously my favorite player, so yes, he was a bit better than Buckner. You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit.
I think Killebrew was better at hitting home runs, which I enjoy. If you like doubles and BA, Bill's your man. Buckner's main failing was his inability to draw walks as he was a #2 and #3 hitter for most of his career.
Killebrew's walks are over rated because the Twins didn't drive him in much. A walk to Killebrew, especially later in his career is a huge victory for the pitcher because when Killebrew hit the ball it went out of the park more often than any other right handed batter with more than 369 HRs in the history of the game (juicers excluded).
Harmon was also a tremendous lead-off hitter!
I stated my opinion that a strikeout is the single worst thing a batter can do and supported it with some reasons. I have more reasons, but why bother to even state them? The argument will go on and on and on....................................
Not interested in spinning the debate into multiple thousands of reasons why Gene Tenace was better than Dan Quisenberry.
I'll say it one last time. Not hitting the ball is worse than hitting the ball. That is all, thank you and good night.
Have a wonderful weekend!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As hysterical as the notion that Buckner was in the same talent universe as Killebrew as a hitter may be, this part of your response confused me so I'm worried I'm missing part of the joke.
Buckner came to the plate 204 more times than Killebrew in their careers, and Buckner made an out 747 more times. And you didn't say "less" you said "a lot less". I don't get it.
Sorry, I was talking about strikeouts and died.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Killebrew's obviously my favorite player, so yes, he was a bit better than Buckner. You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit.
Killebrew is your favorite player and you need someone else to decide if he was more than a little better than Bill Freakin' Buckner????
Man, with fans like you, Killebrew doesn't need any enemies.
I don't NEED anyone here to decide how good Killebrew was, I said I would ALLOW it. I would wager that I have seen more of his at bats than anyone on these boards. I also met him on several occasions and can say he was a true gentleman, not that it's pertinent to the subject.
Ron Fairly was a little bit better than Bill Buckner.
Kent Hrbek was better than Bill Buckner.
Bob Watson was a lot better than Bill Buckner.
Boog Powell was .... I'm already out of words to describe people SO much better than Bill Buckner and I haven't even gotten to the HOFers yet.
A. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Ozzie Smith was better than Chris Speier.
B. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Bill Dickey was better than Jerry Grote.
C. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Reggie Jackson was better than Richie Zisk.
D. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Wade Boggs was better than Doug Rader.
E. All of the Above
The answer is E, as any fan of Harmon Killebrew could tell you.
Killebrew was better than every single player you mentioned in your post.
Enjoy your weekend!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I don't NEED anyone here to decide how good Killebrew was, I said I would ALLOW it.
So you were just insulting his intelligence by offering "a little bit better" as an option? Maybe a bit too subtle, but who am I to criticize a subtle insult? Still, risky business for a Killebrew fan to be comparing Buckner and Killebrew without explicitly laughing at the comparison; anyone who doesn't pick up on what you were really doing might be left with the impression that Buckner belonged in a discussion of good baseball players when, obviously, he doesn't.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I stated my opinion that a strikeout is the single worst thing a batter can do and supported it with some reasons. I have more reasons, but why bother to even state them? The argument will go on and on and on....................................
Not interested in spinning the debate into multiple thousands of reasons why Gene Tenace was better than Dan Quisenberry.
I'll say it one last time. Not hitting the ball is worse than hitting the ball. That is all, thank you and good night.
Have a wonderful weekend!
You mean supported it with nonsense that wasn't actually supported with anything other than a misguided view on the value of a strikeout vs a batted ball out, and complete nonsense in claiming that a strikeout is worse than hitting in to a double play by citing a lone example of a double play that led to a run in a world series, and ignoring the 99.9% of the times a double play is FAR more damaging than a strikeout.
You flop back and forth on walks too. You say Buckner was a number three hitter so his lack of walks hurt him....yet Schmidt hit #3 often too, so did Mantle and Trout, yet you try to diminish the value of their walks by citing something about walks not being important to Killebrew because he can't run, lol.
In the end, just so there is no confusion again....Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall, and makes very little sense to debate that aspect.
You guys try to knock hitters like Schmidt and Trout by saying, "a strikeout does nothing. At least a batted ball out can do something." Blah, blah, blah. If that was all Trout and Schmidt did 700 times a year was strike out, then you would be correct for the first time on the boards. But they don't. What matters in the end is how many WALKS, singles, doubles, triples, home runs they contribute, minus the outs that cost their team. Trout has done that better than anyone in MLB the last ten years...and Schmidt did it better than Brett, and pretty much anyone in his decade.
So what exactly is your point? That you have to hit the ball to get a hit? Really, that is all you are saying. The answer is, no chit sherlock. However,
Read it again, so there is no confusion: Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, you contribute and how many outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall, and makes very little sense to debate that aspect.
@JoeBanzai said:
I don't NEED anyone here to decide how good Killebrew was, I said I would ALLOW it.
So you were just insulting his intelligence by offering "a little bit better" as an option? Maybe a bit too subtle, but who am I to criticize a subtle insult? Still, risky business for a Killebrew fan to be comparing Buckner and Killebrew without explicitly laughing at the comparison; anyone who doesn't pick up on what you were really doing might be left with the impression that Buckner belonged in a discussion of good baseball players when, obviously, he doesn't.
I said; "You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit." He hasn't answered.
My opinion is quite a bit. His question was as much of an insult (more of, actually) to my intelligence as the answer was to his. Funny, how it is that people who are wrong so often resort to deflection and insults in order to avoid saying there is even a possibility that they are wrong.
The discussion was over when I pointed out that a World Series was won by a guy hitting into a DP. No single thing in baseball is more important than winning the WS. Give me one example where striking out has done that. It's quite common for teams to "let a run score" to get two outs, a (theoretically) good strategy that sometimes loses games.
Then we get into if player 1 hits .300/.400/500 and blah blah blah ad infinitum. Not germane to the debate.
One last time; Hitting into a DP is bad. Swinging and missing the ball completely, or worse yet, standing there and doing nothing and getting "rung up" is the worst single thing you can do as a batter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
One last time; Hitting into a DP is bad. Swinging and missing the ball completely, or worse yet, standing there and doing nothing and getting "rung up" is the worst single thing you can do as a batter.
These may seem like purely semantic points but they're not.
First, when you're using words like "bad" and "worst", to say that taking a called strike is "worse" than swinging at a strike simply negates everything else you've said. OBVIOUSLY, taking a called third strike or swinging and missing at strike three are EXACTLY the same in terms of their value. So when you say one is "worse" than the other, you aren't using the word correctly, which calls into question what you mean every other time you use the word.
Second, no, striking out is not the worst single thing that a batter can do. The vast majority of the time, such as when the bases are empty, it makes no difference how an out is made; they are all equal. With two outs, again, it makes no difference; they are all equal. It matters how an out is made when there are less than two outs and there are runners on base. Most of the time, when there are runners on base, one of them is on first base. And when there is a runner on first base, and there are fewer than two outs, the worst single thing that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball. On rare occasions, the weak ground ball will turn out to be better than a strikeout. On many more occasions, the weak ground ball will produce two outs while a strikeout would have produced only one. Taking into account how often the bases are empty, how many outs there are, etc. over the course of every plate appearance, the worst "single thing" that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball.
The one type of out that truly is "better" than a strikeout, or a ground out, is a long fly out, because those lead to advanced runners and runs scored all the time, and very rarely lead to double plays. THOSE outs are not equal to all the other outs. And which kind of hitter gets more long fly outs, the Trout type or the Buckner type? So, after all, Trout's outs actually are more productive than Buckner's or the other batters who can't tell a ball from a strike and so swing at everything.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
I don't NEED anyone here to decide how good Killebrew was, I said I would ALLOW it.
So you were just insulting his intelligence by offering "a little bit better" as an option? Maybe a bit too subtle, but who am I to criticize a subtle insult? Still, risky business for a Killebrew fan to be comparing Buckner and Killebrew without explicitly laughing at the comparison; anyone who doesn't pick up on what you were really doing might be left with the impression that Buckner belonged in a discussion of good baseball players when, obviously, he doesn't.
I said; "You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit." He hasn't answered.
My opinion is quite a bit. His question was as much of an insult (more of, actually) to my intelligence as the answer was to his. Funny, how it is that people who are wrong so often resort to deflection and insults in order to avoid saying there is even a possibility that they are wrong.
The discussion was over when I pointed out that a World Series was won by a guy hitting into a DP. No single thing in baseball is more important than winning the WS. Give me one example where striking out has done that. It's quite common for teams to "let a run score" to get two outs, a (theoretically) good strategy that sometimes loses games.
Then we get into if player 1 hits .300/.400/500 and blah blah blah ad infinitum. Not germane to the debate.
One last time; Hitting into a DP is bad. Swinging and missing the ball completely, or worse yet, standing there and doing nothing and getting "rung up" is the worst single thing you can do as a batter.
The worst thing you can do in baseball is strike out. The
best thing you can do in baseball is make contact. Not sure why you continue to try to convince them
otherwise. They just will never understand the simplicity of this truth.
I think we need data to support the hypothesis that a weak ground ball more often then not will produce two outs while a strikeout will only produce one out.
I've seen plenty of strikeout throw them out when the count is 3-2 and the manager sends the runners and the batter strikes out.
Actually, I will guess that more damage has been done by those situations than by a batter making contact on 3-2 pitches when the runners are in motion by the manager.
One last time; Hitting into a DP is bad. Swinging and missing the ball completely, or worse yet, standing there and doing nothing and getting "rung up" is the worst single thing you can do as a batter.
These may seem like purely semantic points but they're not.
First, when you're using words like "bad" and "worst", to say that taking a called strike is "worse" than swinging at a strike simply negates everything else you've said. OBVIOUSLY, taking a called third strike or swinging and missing at strike three are EXACTLY the same in terms of their value. So when you say one is "worse" than the other, you aren't using the word correctly, which calls into question what you mean every other time you use the word.
Second, no, striking out is not the worst single thing that a batter can do. The vast majority of the time, such as when the bases are empty, it makes no difference how an out is made; they are all equal. With two outs, again, it makes no difference; they are all equal. It matters how an out is made when there are less than two outs and there are runners on base. Most of the time, when there are runners on base, one of them is on first base. And when there is a runner on first base, and there are fewer than two outs, the worst single thing that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball. On rare occasions, the weak ground ball will turn out to be better than a strikeout. On many more occasions, the weak ground ball will produce two outs while a strikeout would have produced only one. Taking into account how often the bases are empty, how many outs there are, etc. over the course of every plate appearance, the worst "single thing" that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball.
The one type of out that truly is "better" than a strikeout, or a ground out, is a long fly out, because those lead to advanced runners and runs scored all the time, and very rarely lead to double plays. THOSE outs are not equal to all the other outs. And which kind of hitter gets more long fly outs, the Trout type or the Buckner type? So, after all, Trout's outs actually are more productive than Buckner's or the other batters who can't tell a ball from a strike and so swing at everything.
You may know math but not baseball.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I certainly appreciate the debate and feel both sides make valid points. I fall on the K being worse, backwards K even worse than that. However, let's get back to the question posed, gents. This is like politics and religion, You ain't changing minds with debate. Who do you want in the box? I said Ted Williams. Definitely not Buckner nor even the Killer. Maybe Balboni so I can win some money or Tenace for old times sake!
Comments
you are the guy who talks and talks and talks, but doesn't take the time to listen to anyone else. you didn't even read my first post.
one last time.
A player who instead of striking out, hits ground balls, etc. will anecdotally be faster to get out of slumps because, on occasion, those grounders, dribblers, pop-ups will miss a fielder and roll through for a hit. string a couple of those together and some players will get out of a cold streak. a strike out will NEVER roll through the infield or drop in for a hit.
by definition, you have to hit your way out of a slump, otherwise, you are still in the slump. pretty hard to hit your way out of a slump when you are constantly striking out.
now I will prepare for your repeated wall of text...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'd like to make one small point, and ask others to help me understand if I am looking at things in a sensible manner.
It appears to me that the type of hitter a player is plays a role in how you judge things like their strikeouts vs GIDP, etc. Some hitters seem to be just good contact hitters. They can get the ball into play, often through a gap or over an infielder. So for these guys taking a called third strike would be infuriating to a fan because they are up there to just make contact and put the ball into play. Because anything can happen if you just get a ball into play But other hitters, like Trout, are not that kind of hitter, so his called third strikes are perhaps the result of his looking for the right pitch to hit (which he does better than anyone).
If you simply MUST go down the analytical rabbit hole, a batter will most likely hit into far fewer double plays than he will strike out.
Killebrew, a slow runner for the last half of his career, struck out 7 time more often during his career than he hit into a DP. Even Jim Rice struck out 4.5 times for every GIDP.
BOTH of these guys finished their careers with a .500 SLG.
Hitting the ball is better than missing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A hitters job is to create runs, plain and simple. In that process they will strike out. If all you do is strike out, then you want have a job. If all you do is make contact and go .190/.222/.318, then you won't have a job.
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
If someone wants to say striking out never amounts to anything, they are wrong, because striking out is often the by product of swinging mostly at pitches that you can hit hard that turn into singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.
If the goal was simply to make contact irregardless to where the ball goes after it is hit, then striking out would be awful....but that isn't the goal in playing baseball. The gooal is hitting the ball well enough to get on base and get extra bases.
If you think striking out is worse than a double play, then please coach against me and every time my guy hits into a double play, then you can void it and award my batter a strikeout instead and put my other guy back on first. I'll do that trade with you any day.
"If the goal was simply to make contact irregardless to where the ball goes after it is hit, then striking out would be awful"
the vast vast majority of modern players do not know where the ball is going after they hit it. If they did, the shift wouldn't be a thing, they would just hit around it. instead, they are loading up for fastballs and releasing looking for a high exit velo and trying to elevate the ball.
they are getting fooled on TONS of pitches, hence the huge K numbers.
there have always been power hitters who struck out a lot. BUT, every player on the field didn't think they were going to try to hit it over the shift and out of the park. that's part of the problem. everyone is trying to hit for power and everyone is not built for it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
everyone is stuck on GIDP. there are almost as many E made than GIDP each season. Those errors would not happen but for a batted ball. last year there were 1900 unearned runs due to errors. I don't have the time or inclination to crunch the numbers, but that has to make a large dent into the runs lost due to GIDP. possibly even out runs lost due to GIDP.
It would be hard to determine how many runs are lost due to GIPD as many are hypothetical runs, because we don't know what the alternative outcome would have been had a player not GIDP.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Please refer to OP’s question?
With two outs, it’s hit or go home time. There’s no productive out here but a ball hit in between the lines of play has a chance to win the game, be it a single, home run, fielding error or throwing error that does it (and those are the only possible outcomes.)
I’ll reiterate that a switch hitter with excellent speed than can drag bunt and hit for prodigious power is the perfect player to have at the plate in this situation.
Mickey Charles, grab a bat!
By the way, do we have Cecil Fielder or Rickey Henderson at 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
🤔 We'll compromise and say a runner with average speed.
Steve Balboni it is!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Perfect!
I forgot which thread this was
and was speaking in general. in this scenario, worst possible outcome is indeed a strikeout....sorry for confusion fellas. 
>
Hitting into a double play can create a run. Striking out? No.
>
Nobody is arguing that.
Striking out never amounts to anything.......fact. It's one of two things, swinging at bad pitches or the inability to hit a ball in the strike zone.
>
The goal is to produce runs as you said above. You cannot do that by failing to make contact. Ever.
>
Your guys will all be striking out, so nobody will be on base. ;-)
Again, no one is arguing that. A hitter can strike out every time he comes to the plate, he cannot hit into a double play every time he comes up. Striking out is bad every time, hitting into a double play is usually worse, but sometimes better.
It's fairly common for a team to give up a run by turning a DP, especially early in a game. Sometimes you end up losing the game by one run.
Second example that I know of off hand; the Twins clinched the pennant in 1987 when a Twins infielder threw home instead of allowing the run and getting the DP.
Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but not all the time hitting into a DP is worse than striking out.
Striking out is always bad.
The percentage is much higher in determining a victory by advancing a guy to 3rd (and the next hitter/s driving him in), or driving him home when hitting into a double play, than in any scenario where a guy strikes out, unless the defense makes an error.
How many times does the defense screw up and turn a strikeout into something good? I'll bet it's a lot less than when a batter hits a "double play" ball where a catch a throw and another catch have to be made.
The same can be said when a batter hits a ground ball "behind" the runner and makes an out, better than a strikeout, even though they're both outs.
very good points Joe
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I showed this thread to a professor of logic and he died. True story.
The all time hits leader , Pete Rose.
It was the subtle good looks of Steve Balboni, no doubt.
Neither woman nor man can resist his charms which defy logic, thus killing professors of the topic.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
33% Burt Reynolds
33% Gabe Kaplan
33% Keith Hernandez
1% Kevin from The Office
100% BEEFCAKE
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Exactly....making every single other thing you said absolutely meaningless. Period. All those things you cite are already credited to a batter.
All those small things you say are common sense and already acknowledges and credited to each batter when you look at their hitting resume. Problem is, you tend to make them bigger than they really are in an 'attempt' to make a contact hitter better than a superior hitter, such as in the case of Brett and Schmidt.
Because you know what is better than making a contact out that moves runner? Getting a hit or getting on base that moves a runner and ADDS another runner...without an out made.
Or maybe Bill Buckner really is better hitter than Killebrew since he struck out WAAAAAY less and had a higher average. Obviously he is not...but the high contact, high batting average guys DO think that.
Exactly...making everything else you said absolutely meaningless. Period. Because this is all that matters.....
If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs.
Steve’s getting upset.
Don’t make Steve upset, guys.
It’s not good.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 You guys are killin' me
Wait, you’re a logic professor or you just got your first Balboner?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
😂 🤣 😭😭😭😭😭
It’s a confusing and wonderful mustache ride of sensual delight. Lean into it, baby...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Abbott and Costello did Who's on First
You guys are doing Who Do You Want in the Batters Box
>
Now we're talking about who was the better hitter between Killebrerw and Buckner?
What's funny is when people here are wrong they change the subject.
I did look it up..........they both averaged about 16 GIDP per year, surprising that Harmon didn't hit into more.
Buckner made a lot less outs than Harmon. Harmon barely has more Total Bases per season than Bill. Harmon walked a LOT more, but that's not a hit, and the way Harm ran for a lot of his career, a walk to the "Killer" wasn't that great of a value.
Yes, if that's what you want to look at, Buckner was the "better" hitter.
What is kind of surprising is Buckner didn't score as many runs per year, might have had something to do with HR.
Killebrew had to wait 4 times to get into the HOF, while Rod Carew went in on the first time. Batting average must mean a LOT! ;-)
That is not a true story, he didn't die, just had a heart attack.
As hysterical as the notion that Buckner was in the same talent universe as Killebrew as a hitter may be, this part of your response confused me so I'm worried I'm missing part of the joke.
Buckner came to the plate 204 more times than Killebrew in their careers, and Buckner made an out 747 more times. And you didn't say "less" you said "a lot less". I don't get it.
NO subject was changed at all. I clearly stated that "If you go .310/.410/.610 you will be better than the guy who goes .310/.333/.433 by leaps and bounds regardless if you strike out on every single one of your outs," .....and you said nobody was arguing that, hence you agreed.
At that point, the rest of the nearly pointless stuff you added was irrelevant, because all those very little things are already accounted for in the better measurements and your opinion on their value or how often they happen is absolutely meaningless and completely wrong...but I felt like playing, much like I do with my cats, so I added a comment, the Buckner/Killebrew comparison.
You responded with a convoluted answer to it. I said, a lot of people claim that Bill Buckner is a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew because Buckner hits for a higher average and strikes out way less.
Do you agree that Buckner is a better hitter than Killebrew, or do yo agree that those people are severely overvaluing the negative impact of striking out and overvaluing the merits of batting average???
Simple question. Is Bill Buckner a better hitter than Harmon Killebrew? Yes or No. Requires zero other clarifications. He either is or isn't.
Because with the extremely high value you are placing on grounding out over striking out, you are backing up those people that say Buckner is better than Killebrew based on those faulty premises.
Just want you to cut to the chase, like you already agreed with what I said in quotes above(making the other points about 1% important). So we can continue to debate if grounding out is 1% better than striking out, or 2%, or you can just clarify it.
Before another convoluted answer comes I just want to make sure you know how many times your example of hitting into a double play to score a run actually occurred in MLB's last full season, 2019.
Bases loaded and nobody out....a grand total of 65 times.
1st and third and nobody out....a grand total of 53 times.
So out of the 186,517 plate appearances in the season, a total of 118 double plays had some type of 'positive' benefit. But if someone can't see the overall negative of hitting into a double play with the bases loaded and nobody out and walking away with only one run...you need a new sport to follow, even if it might be heavily beneficial one or two times. But even so, we will give you the tiny positive. Very impressive, lol.
So if it occurred only 118 times across the entire league, how many times exactly do you think a single player does that an entire year??? Impact = negligible...hence why it isn't even a both to consider in the scope of all the things that truly count: walks, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, OUTS MADE(ANY OUT. ALL OUTS SUCK except for the extremely rare instance).
Just so there is no confusion again....Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall.
There should be zero confusion as of this point. But I shall finish:
But what about the inning ending double plays??
Bases loaded and one out....159 double plays. So if you staked your claim on the few times a double play helped, then this alone completely erases that benefit, and then some.
1st and third and one out...185 double plays.
1st and 2nd one out....434 double plays
Man on 1st one out....1,326
Or the rally killer double plays?
Bases loaded nobody out....oh wait, that is your positive example. I usually counted that as a rally killer, My bad. lol.
Man on 1st nobody out...996
Man on 1st and 2nd nobody out...248
There is a reason why a double play is called a pitchers best friend. I thought that was universally known....but I guess I learn something new every day.
I should not need to expound, and I'm afraid I may have to.....but to quote my favorite cousin Vinny, "are you sure about that five minutes??!"
Yeah, well you said a guy died.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Edited to add..you guys are killin' me
>
Why would I agree to that drivel. Has absolutely nothing to do with my statement, so I said I wasn't arguing about that.
Killebrew's obviously my favorite player, so yes, he was a bit better than Buckner. You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit.
I think Killebrew was better at hitting home runs, which I enjoy. If you like doubles and BA, Bill's your man. Buckner's main failing was his inability to draw walks as he was a #2 and #3 hitter for most of his career.
Killebrew's walks are over rated because the Twins didn't drive him in much. A walk to Killebrew, especially later in his career is a huge victory for the pitcher because when Killebrew hit the ball it went out of the park more often than any other right handed batter with more than 369 HRs in the history of the game (juicers excluded).
Harmon was also a tremendous lead-off hitter!
I stated my opinion that a strikeout is the single worst thing a batter can do and supported it with some reasons. I have more reasons, but why bother to even state them? The argument will go on and on and on....................................
Not interested in spinning the debate into multiple thousands of reasons why Gene Tenace was better than Dan Quisenberry.
I'll say it one last time. Not hitting the ball is worse than hitting the ball. That is all, thank you and good night.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Sorry, I was talking about strikeouts and died.
Killebrew is your favorite player and you need someone else to decide if he was more than a little better than Bill Freakin' Buckner????
Man, with fans like you, Killebrew doesn't need any enemies.
Ron Fairly was a little bit better than Bill Buckner.
Kent Hrbek was better than Bill Buckner.
Bob Watson was a lot better than Bill Buckner.
Boog Powell was .... I'm already out of words to describe people SO much better than Bill Buckner and I haven't even gotten to the HOFers yet.
A. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Ozzie Smith was better than Chris Speier.
B. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Bill Dickey was better than Jerry Grote.
C. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Reggie Jackson was better than Richie Zisk.
D. Harmon Killebrew was as much better than Bill Buckner as Wade Boggs was better than Doug Rader.
E. All of the Above
The answer is E, as any fan of Harmon Killebrew could tell you.
I don't NEED anyone here to decide how good Killebrew was, I said I would ALLOW it. I would wager that I have seen more of his at bats than anyone on these boards. I also met him on several occasions and can say he was a true gentleman, not that it's pertinent to the subject.
Killebrew was better than every single player you mentioned in your post.
Enjoy your weekend!
So you were just insulting his intelligence by offering "a little bit better" as an option? Maybe a bit too subtle, but who am I to criticize a subtle insult? Still, risky business for a Killebrew fan to be comparing Buckner and Killebrew without explicitly laughing at the comparison; anyone who doesn't pick up on what you were really doing might be left with the impression that Buckner belonged in a discussion of good baseball players when, obviously, he doesn't.
You mean supported it with nonsense that wasn't actually supported with anything other than a misguided view on the value of a strikeout vs a batted ball out, and complete nonsense in claiming that a strikeout is worse than hitting in to a double play by citing a lone example of a double play that led to a run in a world series, and ignoring the 99.9% of the times a double play is FAR more damaging than a strikeout.
You flop back and forth on walks too. You say Buckner was a number three hitter so his lack of walks hurt him....yet Schmidt hit #3 often too, so did Mantle and Trout, yet you try to diminish the value of their walks by citing something about walks not being important to Killebrew because he can't run, lol.
In the end, just so there is no confusion again....Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall, and makes very little sense to debate that aspect.
You guys try to knock hitters like Schmidt and Trout by saying, "a strikeout does nothing. At least a batted ball out can do something." Blah, blah, blah. If that was all Trout and Schmidt did 700 times a year was strike out, then you would be correct for the first time on the boards. But they don't. What matters in the end is how many WALKS, singles, doubles, triples, home runs they contribute, minus the outs that cost their team. Trout has done that better than anyone in MLB the last ten years...and Schmidt did it better than Brett, and pretty much anyone in his decade.
So what exactly is your point? That you have to hit the ball to get a hit? Really, that is all you are saying. The answer is, no chit sherlock. However,
Read it again, so there is no confusion: Read this again, what matters is how many walks,singles, doubles, triples, home runs, you contribute and how many outs you make. Whether your out is a ground out or a strikeout there is only a 2% difference between the two overall, and makes very little sense to debate that aspect.
I said; "You decide if it was a little bit or quite a bit." He hasn't answered.
My opinion is quite a bit. His question was as much of an insult (more of, actually) to my intelligence as the answer was to his. Funny, how it is that people who are wrong so often resort to deflection and insults in order to avoid saying there is even a possibility that they are wrong.
The discussion was over when I pointed out that a World Series was won by a guy hitting into a DP. No single thing in baseball is more important than winning the WS. Give me one example where striking out has done that. It's quite common for teams to "let a run score" to get two outs, a (theoretically) good strategy that sometimes loses games.
Then we get into if player 1 hits .300/.400/500 and blah blah blah ad infinitum. Not germane to the debate.
One last time; Hitting into a DP is bad. Swinging and missing the ball completely, or worse yet, standing there and doing nothing and getting "rung up" is the worst single thing you can do as a batter.
These may seem like purely semantic points but they're not.
First, when you're using words like "bad" and "worst", to say that taking a called strike is "worse" than swinging at a strike simply negates everything else you've said. OBVIOUSLY, taking a called third strike or swinging and missing at strike three are EXACTLY the same in terms of their value. So when you say one is "worse" than the other, you aren't using the word correctly, which calls into question what you mean every other time you use the word.
Second, no, striking out is not the worst single thing that a batter can do. The vast majority of the time, such as when the bases are empty, it makes no difference how an out is made; they are all equal. With two outs, again, it makes no difference; they are all equal. It matters how an out is made when there are less than two outs and there are runners on base. Most of the time, when there are runners on base, one of them is on first base. And when there is a runner on first base, and there are fewer than two outs, the worst single thing that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball. On rare occasions, the weak ground ball will turn out to be better than a strikeout. On many more occasions, the weak ground ball will produce two outs while a strikeout would have produced only one. Taking into account how often the bases are empty, how many outs there are, etc. over the course of every plate appearance, the worst "single thing" that a batter can do is hit a weak ground ball.
The one type of out that truly is "better" than a strikeout, or a ground out, is a long fly out, because those lead to advanced runners and runs scored all the time, and very rarely lead to double plays. THOSE outs are not equal to all the other outs. And which kind of hitter gets more long fly outs, the Trout type or the Buckner type? So, after all, Trout's outs actually are more productive than Buckner's or the other batters who can't tell a ball from a strike and so swing at everything.
The worst thing you can do in baseball is strike out. The
best thing you can do in baseball is make contact. Not sure why you continue to try to convince them
otherwise. They just will never understand the simplicity of this truth.
I think we need data to support the hypothesis that a weak ground ball more often then not will produce two outs while a strikeout will only produce one out.
I've seen plenty of strikeout throw them out when the count is 3-2 and the manager sends the runners and the batter strikes out.
Actually, I will guess that more damage has been done by those situations than by a batter making contact on 3-2 pitches when the runners are in motion by the manager.
You may know math but not baseball.
@JoeBanzai @dallasactuary
You guys think you’re fooling anyone?
There’s a hundred good threads. You’re not hear for banter, you’re hear for Balboni!
Like a nice scotch; better with age!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Educate me. What was it that I said that was wrong, and how do you know it was wrong?
I certainly appreciate the debate and feel both sides make valid points. I fall on the K being worse, backwards K even worse than that. However, let's get back to the question posed, gents. This is like politics and religion, You ain't changing minds with debate. Who do you want in the box? I said Ted Williams. Definitely not Buckner nor even the Killer. Maybe Balboni so I can win some money or Tenace for old times sake!
I give up.