The anatomy of a strikeout, and the overblown factor...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
The biggest overblown things in all of sport is the lambasting a player recieves for striking out. I mean, does it make one feel better to watch a player dribble one to second, or pop one up on the infield instead? For petes sake, that is the difference.
Just today I heard somebody get ripped for calling Adam Dunn an excellent hitter. The 'ripper' cited Dunn's monsterous strikeout totals as if they relegated him to Mick Kelleher. If people would step back and think logically about it, and then look at the reality of baseball, then they will realize that they should be saving their venom for guys who deserve it. After all, if they scorn a guy for striking out so much, why do the same people then give a free pass for guys who lead the league in other outs in their quest for more RBI?
Lets dig in a bit here and use some common sense and pure facts. Lets look at two extreme guys, Mike Schmidt the big whiffer and Bill Buckner, Mr. contact. I've heard Buckner compared favorably to Schmidt by many fans, because they say he was a better 'hitter'. More on what constitutes a good hitter in another thread, but the reason why they say such things is because the whopping difference in strikeouts.
Mike Schmidt had 1,883 of them.
Bill Buckner had 453 of them.
People will use that difference as if it were the difference in the number of hits, or HR or something. They think, WOW, 1,400 more strikeouts, that erases that HR lead Schmidt has. Does it?
The first thing fans must realize with strikeouts is that more than half of them occur with nobody on base. It makes ZERO difference whether you strikeout, line out, fly out, dribble out, or anything out when there is nobody on base! An out is an out.
Over 1,000 of Schmidt's k's came with nobody on base, and 244 of Buckners did, so there is no point at all to even consider those strikouts, as it makes no difference. In fact, the only time where a strike out really makes a difference compared to a contact out is the situation of a man on third and less than two outs.
That is the situation we need to be concerned about. How many strikeouts did each have in that crucial situation for their career. Here are their approximate numbers(could be off by a handful either way).
Schmidt 150
Buckner 43
Yes, that is the gravity of the difference between their strikeouts. That looks far less imposing when somebody shoots off that 1,400 difference as if 1,400 is the real difference in value.
Does that mean automatically that Buckner is responsible for 107 more runs becaue of that difference? No. Not all runners score from third on contact outs. If one is generous, you can say Buckner was responsible for 100 more of those runs. Great, lets use that as a nice round figure (fans like round figures).
Lets cut into that 100 run value betwen the two when you look at the negatives that come with extreme contact hitters(or the positives that come wtih power strikeout hitters)....mainly DOUBLE PLAYS!
HITTING INTO DOUBLE PLAYS
Schmidt 156
Buckner 247
OUCH!
How about sac flies? Power hitters tend to hit more fly balls on their contact, lets see if that matters.
Sac Flies
Schmidt 107
Buckner 98
OK.
With all of Buckner's contact, you would figure something would happen with defenses, as isn't that what Little League coaches always told us...just make contact as anything could happen. Boy that rings true in little league, and those words sure must have meant a lot from our coaches as they sure have stuck with fans through adulthood. Unfortuantely Little League is a different world.
REACH BASE ON ERROR
Schmidt 118
Buckner 99
In MLB, "smack the ball very hard" takes on much more importance than swing 'not to strike out'...because the guys in the field catch pretty much everytyhing...save for the one hop rockets that Schmidt or Reggie may hit.
Lets recap....................
K's man on third < 2 outs.
Schmidt 150
Buckner 43
SAC FLIES
Schmidt 107
Buckner 98
DOUBLE PLAYS
Schmidt 156
Buckner 247
REACHED ON ERROR
Schmidt 118
Buckner 99
So that 100 difference difference in the KEY spot of man on third < less than two outs is offset by the following....
Schmidt had 9 more sac flies
Schmidt ROE 19 more times
Buckner hit into 91 more DP's.
That takes a huge bite into that 100 differnce! The one thing I didn't count is the runners Buckner moved from first to second or second to third. This situation doesn't happen often, and unless it happens with NOBODY OUT, then it is extremely tiny in value. One can go through the game logs and see EXACTLY how many times it happend for each. One can do that for everybody, WAIT, IT HAS BEEN DONE! It has been done for every single player from 1959 to now, for every single play.
What that tells you is that the average strikeout vs. the average contact out is a difference of about THREE runs per every 100 strikeouts. In this case, that 1,400 strikeout difference equates to about an extra 42 runs above average that Buckner should be credited over Schmidt. Yeah, it means something, but nowhere near where people think it does, and keep in mind these are two players on the EXTREME ends of the spectrum.
For anyone who wants to scorn a strikeout guy, pleae don't stop at strikeouts...give them the same scorn for all other outs too! Praise the hitters that don't make as many outs and that give you lots of BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR. Those events are the true building blocks for scoring runs. Making outs is the one thing that tears into those building blocks...ALL TYPES OF OUTS.
Just today I heard somebody get ripped for calling Adam Dunn an excellent hitter. The 'ripper' cited Dunn's monsterous strikeout totals as if they relegated him to Mick Kelleher. If people would step back and think logically about it, and then look at the reality of baseball, then they will realize that they should be saving their venom for guys who deserve it. After all, if they scorn a guy for striking out so much, why do the same people then give a free pass for guys who lead the league in other outs in their quest for more RBI?
Lets dig in a bit here and use some common sense and pure facts. Lets look at two extreme guys, Mike Schmidt the big whiffer and Bill Buckner, Mr. contact. I've heard Buckner compared favorably to Schmidt by many fans, because they say he was a better 'hitter'. More on what constitutes a good hitter in another thread, but the reason why they say such things is because the whopping difference in strikeouts.
Mike Schmidt had 1,883 of them.
Bill Buckner had 453 of them.
People will use that difference as if it were the difference in the number of hits, or HR or something. They think, WOW, 1,400 more strikeouts, that erases that HR lead Schmidt has. Does it?
The first thing fans must realize with strikeouts is that more than half of them occur with nobody on base. It makes ZERO difference whether you strikeout, line out, fly out, dribble out, or anything out when there is nobody on base! An out is an out.
Over 1,000 of Schmidt's k's came with nobody on base, and 244 of Buckners did, so there is no point at all to even consider those strikouts, as it makes no difference. In fact, the only time where a strike out really makes a difference compared to a contact out is the situation of a man on third and less than two outs.
That is the situation we need to be concerned about. How many strikeouts did each have in that crucial situation for their career. Here are their approximate numbers(could be off by a handful either way).
Schmidt 150
Buckner 43
Yes, that is the gravity of the difference between their strikeouts. That looks far less imposing when somebody shoots off that 1,400 difference as if 1,400 is the real difference in value.
Does that mean automatically that Buckner is responsible for 107 more runs becaue of that difference? No. Not all runners score from third on contact outs. If one is generous, you can say Buckner was responsible for 100 more of those runs. Great, lets use that as a nice round figure (fans like round figures).
Lets cut into that 100 run value betwen the two when you look at the negatives that come with extreme contact hitters(or the positives that come wtih power strikeout hitters)....mainly DOUBLE PLAYS!
HITTING INTO DOUBLE PLAYS
Schmidt 156
Buckner 247
OUCH!
How about sac flies? Power hitters tend to hit more fly balls on their contact, lets see if that matters.
Sac Flies
Schmidt 107
Buckner 98
OK.
With all of Buckner's contact, you would figure something would happen with defenses, as isn't that what Little League coaches always told us...just make contact as anything could happen. Boy that rings true in little league, and those words sure must have meant a lot from our coaches as they sure have stuck with fans through adulthood. Unfortuantely Little League is a different world.
REACH BASE ON ERROR
Schmidt 118
Buckner 99
In MLB, "smack the ball very hard" takes on much more importance than swing 'not to strike out'...because the guys in the field catch pretty much everytyhing...save for the one hop rockets that Schmidt or Reggie may hit.
Lets recap....................
K's man on third < 2 outs.
Schmidt 150
Buckner 43
SAC FLIES
Schmidt 107
Buckner 98
DOUBLE PLAYS
Schmidt 156
Buckner 247
REACHED ON ERROR
Schmidt 118
Buckner 99
So that 100 difference difference in the KEY spot of man on third < less than two outs is offset by the following....
Schmidt had 9 more sac flies
Schmidt ROE 19 more times
Buckner hit into 91 more DP's.
That takes a huge bite into that 100 differnce! The one thing I didn't count is the runners Buckner moved from first to second or second to third. This situation doesn't happen often, and unless it happens with NOBODY OUT, then it is extremely tiny in value. One can go through the game logs and see EXACTLY how many times it happend for each. One can do that for everybody, WAIT, IT HAS BEEN DONE! It has been done for every single player from 1959 to now, for every single play.
What that tells you is that the average strikeout vs. the average contact out is a difference of about THREE runs per every 100 strikeouts. In this case, that 1,400 strikeout difference equates to about an extra 42 runs above average that Buckner should be credited over Schmidt. Yeah, it means something, but nowhere near where people think it does, and keep in mind these are two players on the EXTREME ends of the spectrum.
For anyone who wants to scorn a strikeout guy, pleae don't stop at strikeouts...give them the same scorn for all other outs too! Praise the hitters that don't make as many outs and that give you lots of BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR. Those events are the true building blocks for scoring runs. Making outs is the one thing that tears into those building blocks...ALL TYPES OF OUTS.
0
Comments
Seriously - interesting study - enjoyed it.
<< <i>Anything to take my mind off the dam Phillies losing. I just got done reading some 17th century poetry - gee dem guys write good. >>
I feel your pain, brother
In the initial post it shows just how often the K does happen in meaningful situtions.
The fact that when people compare players, they shoot off their career strikeout totals as if they are indicitive of a whole lot. You hear it all the time...well he had 500 more strikeouts than him. They say it in the same vein as if they were saying he had 500 more doubles than him.
What they fail to recognize is that right off the bat over half of the 500 occur with nobody on base, hence ABSOLUTELY no difference between a strikeout, ground out, or any out as no base runners can be advanced.
In the Schmidt Buckner case, Schmidt had over 1,400 more strikeouts. When you hear a fan bring this up to them, kindly tell them that Schmidt had only 107 more of them in meaningful base situaitons.
107 is the truth, while 1,400 is something somebody in a losing debate will resort to(as it has no merit), because of the prerceived shock value.
Then kindly point out the increased double plays that went with it, and the other factors that were also pointed out.
A GOOD RULE OF THUMB!!!
When you hear somebody bring strikeouts into the mix for a debate, a good rule of thumb to put their value into perspective is that every 100 strikeouts(compared to contact outs) is worth about TWO HOME RUNS in value. So if somebody shows that a player struck out 400 less times than Ron Santo, don't think that the number 400 is some large number. It would be equivalant of that guy adding on EIGHT home runs for his career total. That is the extent of the value of K's.
A better rule of thumb is to compare the players on something that takes all that into account, like Situational Batter Runs.
Skin - I appreciate the time and effort you put into the write-up, but you will never convince me that a K is preferred over contact with the bat (no matter the result) You have to put the bat on the ball to make something happen. Even with a man on 1st and assuming no outs and a ground ball to follow - does not guarantee a double play nor a cleanly fielded play. Let the defense make a play, if you K, you never gave them the opportunity.
Agree with you, with no to advance a runner with a strike out, other than the stolen base.
Peace
Doug
45% complete.
<< <i>Volver, in most cases the K is not any different than any other out. In fact, in some cases a K is preferred over ground ball outs, i.e with a man a first base.
Skin - I appreciate the time and effort you put into the write-up, but you will never convince me that a K is preferred over contact with the bat (no matter the result) You have to put the bat on the ball to make something happen. Even with a man on 1st and assuming no outs and a ground ball to follow - does not guarantee a double play nor a cleanly fielded play. Let the defense make a play, if you K, you never gave them the opportunity. >>
As a kid, you were always tought to put the ball into play. Make contact and anything can happen.
BTW - I'll take a sac fly to either score a run or advance a player over a K any day.
You guys are saying the exact things that caused me to write this...you are overblowing the factor of Striking out vs. a Contact out.
Perkdog, you are saying a guy who makes contact is much better than a guy who swings at air. Why? Perkdog, strking out is not the worst thing a hitter can do...hitting into a triple play is, followed by a double play.
Look at the real results of the extreme contact hitter vs. the extreme strikeout hitter. You can see exactly how often his contacts moved runners up. For those who are using the little league philosophy of anything can happen, you can see exactly how often it leads to errors. In this case Schmidt actually got on MORE than Buckner via the error, as soft contact doesn't get as many errors made.
You guys are assuming that all those times of contact are moving runners all over the place. The reality is it doesn't. It is there in black and white. At the same time, you are just brushing aside the monumental factor of the added double plays it leads to. Just look at the Schmidt/Buckner example.
Volver/Stown, in MLB just putting the ball into play and hoping something will 'happen' is not a good strategy, as what usually occurs is the out, or the double play. This isn't little league where that philosophy rings true. Show me how many times a player has moved runners over with outs, and compare that to a guy like Schmidt. Show me the real diference, instead of just assuming. I already showed you the real difference. That has been looked at already.
There is no need to guess on how often it occurs, it is recorded.
HERE IS WHAT I SAID IN MY INTIAL POST REGARDING THE ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IDEA
'With all of Buckner's contact, you would figure something would happen with defenses, as isn't that what Little League coaches always told us...just make contact as anything could happen. Boy that rings true in little league, and those words sure must have meant a lot from our coaches as they sure have stuck with fans through adulthood. Unfortuantely Little League is a different world.
REACH BASE ON ERROR
Schmidt 118
Buckner 99
In MLB, "smack the ball very hard" takes on much more importance than swing 'not to strike out'...because the guys in the field catch pretty much everytyhing...save for the one hop rockets that Schmidt or Reggie may hit."
Edit to say: Actually, no-- it doesn't imply that. My bad.
If a player wanted to make simple contact every single time, then they could come close to doing that, but boy I wouldn't see too many HR or hits coming as a result. That however, is a different topic.
What fans have to understand is that striking out isn't any worse than making any other out(in 90% of situations). People are assuming that all these contact outs are much better than a NON contact out, and they really aren't. Making an out is an out, and it does the same thing to your team's chances whether it was a ground out, or a strike out. There are only certain instances where there truly is a difference, and I stated those and showed the real value of it.
Question for everybody. With nobody on base, does it hurt your team any more if you strike out or if you fly out? I would prefer a hit in either situation, but that isn't the question.
Most strikeouts aren't any more damaging than any other out, yet people must be fans of pop outs or tap outs as they don't reserve the same disdain for those. They are under the false impression that all those contact outs are making large strides for scoring runs.
When you examine just how often contact outs lead to advancing runners, and then compare that to strikeout outs, you will see that the difference is very small, and the only real difference comes into play when THERE IS A MAN ON THIRD WITH LESS THAN TWO OUTS!
But how often does that situatin even happen? As I pointed out with the two extreme hitters, Mike Schmidt had appx 150 of such strikeouts, while Bil buckner had appx 43. That is the gravity of the difference, YET PEOPLE ALWAYS LOOK AT MIKE SCHMIDT HAVING 1,400 MORE TOTAL STRIKEOUTS THAN BUCKNER AND ASSUME THAT IS SUCH A DRASTIC DIFFERENCE IN BASEBALL VALUE. They are wrong, as it is all accounted for.
<< <i>Nowhere is it written that if you have baserunners with a full count and you have a ball thrown that may be a strike just not a great pitch to hit you are to take the strikeout, make contact is the rule as far as Im concerned. >>
Nobody is saying its better to "take" a strikeout; of course the batter wants to make contact. The point is that it doesn't matter much if he makes contact if he just sticks his bat out and touches the ball. What the good hitters do is swing hard so that if contact is made then there's a good chance of a hit; doing that means they will strike out more (Schmidt) and hit fewer easy ground balls (Buckner), but it also means they will be much more productive hitters.
The other side of the coin that I don't think has been mentioned is that "contact hitters" - in their single-minded quest to "just make contact" - are giving up on taking a walk. Mike Schmidt walked more often in four seasons than Bill Buckner did in his entire career. Mike Schmidt swung like a monster at the good pitches and watched the bad pitches; Bill Buckner swung like my grandmother at every single pitch. The net result was that Schmidt created nearly 50% more runs than Buckner; a fairly typical margin between a good hitter and a bad hitter (sorry, I mean between a good hitter and a "contact" hitter).
K's suck, period. I disagree that it is an overblown factor.
Just the fact that the ball is not put in play, no way to get a hit if you K, not sure what your stats are exactly trying to show, but I guess I'm too stupid to understand the logic of it.
Schmidt k'd 1883 in 8300 ab's, 22.5% of the time he k'd, 22.5% of the time no chance at getting on base or advancing runners, not an overblown factor. I didn't factor in bb's and sf's etc I know, maybe more like 18% of plate appearances whatever it is.
Peace
Doug
45% complete.
The only thing I will add is that when you say they swing hard, there is a good chance at a hit...I would add that there is a good chance at a good RUN CREATING hit like a 2B, 3B, or HR.
I think the stigma attached to the strikeout is appropriate.
So what does it matter if he grounded out 1,800 times or struck out 1,800 times? Those are still 1,800 outs for his team. After all, we already know how many, and the types of hits he got(which were very nice).
So what is then at question is how advantageous a contact out is. Since more than half of strikeouts occur with nobody on, there is no difference in those.
Some k's move a runner from first to second, or secodn to third(but those don't happen often and only really matter when it happens with zero outs). But those are offset by the increased double plays that go with it. See Schmidt vs. Buckner
Which leaves the situation of a man on third and less than two outs as the real difference maker in striking out. Schmidt had 150 such of those, Buckner 43. So it is really only 150 strikeouts of Schmidt that are truly anything worth looking at. That 1,800 number doesn't mean anything different than 1,800 outs made.
What should really bother you is that Buckner made 7,100 outs, and Schmidt 6,400 in a similar amount of plate apperances. Don't get so hung up in the types of outs, as all those outs are damaging to a team, and only the 150 strikeouts by Schmidt with Man on 3rd < less than two outs really are any worse than the other outs.
HALVES, we already know the chances of contact outs to move runners up, and the frequency of reaching via error. That isn't a mystery, and that is what I am saying...it is a negligible difference save for the one situation. As you can see Schmidt reached via error MORE than Buckner, and Buckner made much mroe contact...but it is SOFT contact(the baine of a contact hitter).
<< <i>I'm hearing something about a Schmidt and Buckner comparison. Bill Buckner could not hold Schmidt's jock strap. Schmidt was a 3 time MVP stud. An awesome HR and RBI machine who was clutch. I grew up in the 70's and 80's and he was probably baseballs best player. Jackson, Rice and Brett were great too-just to name a few. Schmidt was also a numerous time gold glove winner. If anyone is comparing these two they should be drug tested.-I mean come on fellas.
Billy Bucks will NEVER be in the same category as Schmidt, Rice ect.. ect.. I think Skin is just using him as referance, I cant say I have ever heard anyone say Buckner was in the same category as those guys.
<< <i>Right, they aren't being compared as players. They just happen to be on each of the extreme ends of strikeouts/contact. Though I have often heard Buckner being said to be a better 'hitter' than Schmidt. >>
And I would love to hear how you responded to such nonsense.
<< <i>I'm hearing something about a Schmidt and Buckner comparison. Bill Buckner could not hold Schmidt's jock strap. Schmidt was a 3 time MVP stud. An awesome HR and RBI machine who was clutch. I grew up in the 70's and 80's and he was probably baseballs best player. Jackson, Rice and Brett were great too-just to name a few. Schmidt was also a numerous time gold glove winner. If anyone is comparing these two they should be drug tested.-I mean come on fellas.
Ah, man. Please don't bring up Jim Rice in thread's started by Skinpinch. He's just going to blast Rice to pieces again.
Skin-I'd be interested to see this comparison between somebody with low strikeouts like Buckner and someone that was a classic #2 hitter known for being a "contact" hitter. I've always admired hitters that could hit the ball to the right side and advance runners even if it caused an out.
For all the same reasons that Mike Schmidt is a much better hitter than Bill Buckner he is also a better hitter, just not by as much, than Roberto Clemente. Clemente's 50 point advantage in BA and 600 K advantage, even coming in a much tougher era and in a tougher park and even though Clemente had much better power than Buckner, are still far surpassed by the extra production that Schmidt got from swinging hard and swinging more discriminately. Ditto for Reggie Jackson: he struck out more than twice as much as Clemente, and Clemente's BA was 55 points higher, but Reggie wins where it matters - creating runs. Throw in fielding and Clemente may have been a better all-around player than Jackson (MAY have been), but Reggie was clearly the better hitter.
Skin - Your love and knowledge of baseball is appreciated, but I do not tink the strikeout is an overblown factor - period.
If two players are equal in EVERYTHING offensively, except strikeouts, how many more runs do you think a guy with 1,000 less strikeouts is adding to his team?
Volver, this bears repeating...
What should really bother you is that Buckner made 7,100 outs, and Schmidt 6,400 in a similar amount of plate apperances. Don't get so hung up in the types of outs, as all those outs are damaging to a team, and only the 150 strikeouts by Schmidt with Man on 3rd < less than two outs really are any worse than the other outs.
HALVES, we already know the chances of contact outs to move runners up, and the frequency of reaching via error. That isn't a mystery, and that is what I am saying...it is a negligible difference save for the one situation. As you can see Schmidt reached via error MORE than Buckner, and Buckner made much mroe contact...but it is SOFT contact(the baine of a contact hitter).
Halves, how many times per year do you believe Buckner moved runners up with outs, compared to that of Schmidt? That will give you your answer. I'm not sure why you would say they are overblowm, then PERIOD, when everything is laid out clear as day in front of you.
Volver, you still haven't answered this question. Is striking out with nobody on worse than any other out? Is striking out with two outs worse than any other out? Please answer, you seem stuck on something as everything is prettty clear. What is not clear?
I'll answer that one for Volver. Yes, striking out with two outs is worse than making the third out by trying to stretch a base hit into extra bases when doing so allows another runner to score prior to the batter being tagged out.
Of course, if the scenario is that no one else is on base then no, it's no worse.
Excellent post. I posted the same thing about a year ago, but much less eloquently. I don't know that you can change somebodys mind that Rob Deer is a more valuable hitter than Enos Cabell. Baseball is about hitting the ball hard, not just hitting the ball.
Editted to add: Baseball is about putting runs on the board, a strikeout does not hurt the offense in the long run as people WANT it to.
In terms of the value of an out - no it is not, but since when do I have to value when a strikeout is productive or not. It comes down to this - How many times have you heard the phrase "that was a productive out" uttered when someone whiffed?
Skin - No need to get upset as we will agree to disagree.
Now that you finally recognize that appx 70% of strikeouts are a non factor(compared to contact outs), that should start to crystalize how small of a detriment they truly are compared to making contact.
Volver, you said...
<< <i>In terms of the value of an out - no it is not, but since when do I have to value when a strikeout is productive or not. It comes down to this - How many times have you heard the phrase "that was a productive out" uttered when someone whiffed? >>
Volver, NOW you are talking my language. You can count EXACTLY how many times a productive out occured, and that is the beauty in record keeping! I can't tell you how many such phrases were uttered, but the records will show how often a ground ball moved a guy to third. What the record shows is that the difference is small. In fact, the difference gets erased and then some when you account for the added DP's. The only such situation where contact becomes a real factor is with Man on third< than two outs.. and in the case of Mike Schmidt and Buckner, and Mike Schmidt's whopping 1,400 more strikeouts, how many were of a real factor....
ONLY 107 more than Buckner in the meaningful situation. You look at 1,400 difference and think such a large magnitude, when 107 is the true magnitude. I hope that helps.
Agree to disagree? What the heck is there to disagree on? Are you going to disagree with the record keeping of how many such runner movements occured, and how many runners it truly added? It seems to me that all you have is a 'notion' with absolutely NOTHING to back up said notion.
The true negative value of a strikeout vs. a contact out is written in my first post...you should probalby read it, as your comments make me think you haven't.
So if a player comes to the plate 600 times and makes 600 contact outs, he fills your notion, and that should make you happy.
Volver, you stated you don't think striking out is an overblown factor, and emphatically added a "period." So you need to clairfy exactly what constitutes overblown...here is your chance.
Tell me which of these are incorrect to your notion....
1)Mike Schmidt had 1,400 more strikeouts than Buckner. Within that number Schmidt only had appx 107 more K's in the meaningful situation of Man on Third< two outs.
2)The more contact a player makes(especially soft contact), the greater chance he has of hitting into a double play. Real results tell us this is the truth. Since Schmidt struck out so much, he didn't hit into as many double plays as Bill Buckner. In fact, Buckner hit into a whopping 91 more double plays than Schmidt.
3)There are cases where a batted ball out can move a runner from second to third, or first to second. Do you believe that hitting into a double play does more damage to the chance of scoring runs, than advancing a runner from second to third does at increasing?
4)How often do you think a guy like Bill BUckner actually advnaces runners from first to second, or second to third on outs? If a player advances 8 extra guys in such a manner during the season, how many double plays does it take to erase that positive benefit?
5) If a player advanced 10 extra guys from second to third, and you didn't even factor in the increased double plays in other situations, how much does that really help score runs?
From 1999-2002 a team with a Man on Second and zero outs scored 1.18 runs in the inning. An out to move him over actually decreased the chance at scoring runs, as a Man on Third W/ One out, the team scored .98 runs in the inning. In the event of a strikeout to leave the situation Man on Second, One out...the team would score .725 runs. So what does that mean...
A "K" in that situation left the run scoring a .72 runs
A contact out that moved the runner left it...98 runs.
That is hardly an astronomical difference, AND that is assuming that all contact outs in that situation actually moved the runner. We know this is CERTAINLY NOT true. When you factor in this fact, then you start to see how small this factor is. When you factor in the increased double plays that come with much contact, then it completely wipes out the positive aspect in the second to third situations.
This is why a fan cannot look at a player who struck out 1,000 more times, and think it equates to a thousand hits or something, yet that is the disdain it receives.
I repeat, for every 100 strikeouts, it is equivalent in value to appx. two Home Runs. VOLVER, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT? This will tell me if you are overblowing anything.
So if a player comes to the plate 600 times and makes 600 contact outs, he fills your notion, and that should make you happy.
Volver, you stated you don't think striking out is an overblown factor, and emphatically added a "period." So you need to clairfy exactly what constitutes overblown...here is your chance.
Tell me which of these are incorrect to your notion....
1)Mike Schmidt had 1,400 more strikeouts than Buckner. Within that number Schmidt only had appx 107 more K's in the meaningful situation of Man on Third< two outs.
How are you only coming up with 107 more K's in meaningful situations? If you throw out 70% of 1400 that is 980 - leaving 420 K's, not 107 - a big difference.
2)The more contact a player makes(especially soft contact), the greater chance he has of hitting into a double play. Real results tell us this is the truth. Since Schmidt struck out so much, he didn't hit into as many double plays as Bill Buckner. In fact, Buckner hit into a whopping 91 more double plays than Schmidt.
Again, you are assuming a double play will happen. Just yesterday I was watching a game and Victor Martinez hit a ground ball to 3rd (w/ a 1-2 count, 1 out and runners on 1st and 2nd) and Beltre threw to second for what should have been a routine double play - instead a bad throw, one run scores and you have runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. If Martinez K's that entire sequence does not happen.
3)There are cases where a batted ball out can move a runner from second to third, or first to second. Do you believe that hitting into a double play does more damage to the chance of scoring runs, than advancing a runner from second to third does at increasing?
Grant it a double play is more damaging that a strikeout if any kind, but a strikeout can happen more often than a double play and that is the difference.
4)How often do you think a guy like Bill BUckner actually advnaces runners from first to second, or second to third on outs? If a player advances 8 extra guys in such a manner during the season, how many double plays does it take to erase that positive benefit?
Not sure that is a quantifiable number.
5) If a player advanced 10 extra guys from second to third, and you didn't even factor in the increased double plays in other situations, how much does that really help score runs?
If a run is not scored than of course it does not help, but if runners were not on base you never had the chance to score.
This is why a fan cannot look at a player who struck out 1,000 more times, and think it equates to a thousand hits or something, yet that is the disdain it receives.
Surely no is assuming/saying that.
I repeat, for every 100 strikeouts, it is equivalent in value to appx. two Home Runs. VOLVER, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT? This will tell me if you are overblowing anything.
No I do not...this whole thing is merely a numbers play and that is fine and we are just two fans sharing their thoughts on a subject with no right or wrong answer.
Sorry I do not know how to work the whole previous quote thing.
I don't understand how hitting for contact is better than swinging for the fence and whiffing a good deal because, Schmidt has 387 more RBI and scored 429 more runs in 1045 less plate appearances than Buckner, not to mention he had about a 1000 more walks than Buckner(maybe cause he didn't hit a weak grounder to the second basemen on the first pitch that was was able to hit). I guess some of you guys will blame that on the other players on the team but, I do think the 548 Home Runs makes up for the few strikeouts that actually cost the team a run.
I really like the facts and post you put up skin.
Jeff
However, a batter should be based on his production; if he strikes out a lot but is productive anyway (Schmidt, Mantle, etc...) then nobody cares about the strikeouts. If you rarely strike out, but are still not productive, what difference does it make that you do not strike out? Either you are productive or you are not.
A high strikeout total is an indicator of future success (or failure) of a hitter. As a rule, high strike out totals are bad, and they certainly plagued Bo Jackson (he hit over .400 when he put the ball in play). A player can certainly have high SO totals and be a star. A player should be judged on what he did. Once an out has been made, it rarely matters what kind of an out it was.
As for how productive they are, contrary to what volver states...they most certainly can be quantified and counted EXACTLY how often a guy has moved runners up with batted ball outs. That is about as black and white you can get in the sportsworld, and it dumbfounds me that someone disagrees with this fact. It is all recorded to see. You can find EXACTLY how often Bill Buckner did it. It is no mystery.
After knowing already how often it occured, one can safely say that typically every 100 contact outs contributes to scoring runs at an equivalent rate of apporximately TWO home runs. So for every 100 contact outs Bill Buckner made, you can figure that is equivalant if he had hit an extra two home runs.
If a guy like Nellie Fox moved even more runners over(and in the more key situations), then his total may be an extra three or three and a half home runs.