MLB Hitters & Rising K Totals - Whiny Punks?
MattyC
Posts: 1,335 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
So I came across this ESPN article regarding the outrageous strikeout totals these days. It really struck me as a bunch of pampered, coddled, over-entitled millionaire hitters whining about how great pitching is the reason why they K so much-- rather than looking in the mirror at their own approach at the plate, especially with two-strikes.
Babe Ruth to my knowledge never K'd 100 times. I also believe the great Yogi Berra had several seasons in which he had more HR than Ks, and we are talking about 20-30 homers there. More recently guys like Mattingly, Brett, Thomas, Sheffield, and Pujols, among others would hit 30+ HRs with very low K rates. Donnie Baseball and Brett, whom I idolized, averaged max 40 Ks a season with power. Guys like that showed it is indeed possible to hit for power while maintaining a high batting average and low Ks.
The view of the hitters quoted seems to jive with the general decline in character I observe in society lately-- take the skinny hipster punks in downtown Manhattan who are salty because they don't get great jobs and iPads handed to them right out of college, while their parents pay for everything. Or the way, for the most part, solid defense and great post/pivot play in the NBA has all but vanished. Or the way Lebron James chose to join a ready-made team that was already a title-winner with a star over the harder path, when a guy like MJ or Magic or Bird would have preferred to beat their best comp en route to a ring. There's just something about this article and how it intimates K's are being accepted that rubs me the wrong way, about the way the game is played and beyond.
Then again, perhaps I am just surly and grumpy today. Or a 90 year old trapped in a 36 yr old shell.
article
Babe Ruth to my knowledge never K'd 100 times. I also believe the great Yogi Berra had several seasons in which he had more HR than Ks, and we are talking about 20-30 homers there. More recently guys like Mattingly, Brett, Thomas, Sheffield, and Pujols, among others would hit 30+ HRs with very low K rates. Donnie Baseball and Brett, whom I idolized, averaged max 40 Ks a season with power. Guys like that showed it is indeed possible to hit for power while maintaining a high batting average and low Ks.
The view of the hitters quoted seems to jive with the general decline in character I observe in society lately-- take the skinny hipster punks in downtown Manhattan who are salty because they don't get great jobs and iPads handed to them right out of college, while their parents pay for everything. Or the way, for the most part, solid defense and great post/pivot play in the NBA has all but vanished. Or the way Lebron James chose to join a ready-made team that was already a title-winner with a star over the harder path, when a guy like MJ or Magic or Bird would have preferred to beat their best comp en route to a ring. There's just something about this article and how it intimates K's are being accepted that rubs me the wrong way, about the way the game is played and beyond.
Then again, perhaps I am just surly and grumpy today. Or a 90 year old trapped in a 36 yr old shell.
article
0
Comments
Joe DiMaggio.....(.97832)
Lefty O'Doul......(.92623)
Yogi Berra.........(.86473)
Ted Kluszewski..(.76438)
Ted Williams......(.73484)
Ernie Lombardi...(.72519)
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Throw in the fact that power is more desirable now than ever before and the strikeout is going to happen more than ever. It doesn't make the hitters more 'entitled', and I cannot possbly fathom how you took the article you linked and came to the conclusion that the hitters are a 'bunch of pampered, coddled, over-entitled millionaire hitters whining'. The pitching is impossibly good now. The bullpen, which used to be where pitchers who just weren't very good anymore, is now home to guy after guy who can hit 95+ (and was even mentioned in the article you linked).
A strikeout is really not that much worse than a ground out or lineout. The infinitely small chance of an error simply isn't worth it to these guys to choke up and try to make contact over their comfort zone. I can't say I blame them.
I've played a great deal of ball and find myself in agreement with the quotes of Pedrioia, Baker, and Thomas-- to me a strikeout, especially in certain situations, is something to be avoided. For it to become accepted and lose its stigma seems wrong to me. If it really is no different than any other out, perhaps they should stop tracking the stat as its own column?
This is just my opinion, but were I a professional hitter striking out a ton, I'd work my a55 off and find ways to cut down my K's, rather than help cultivate a new prevailing view that accepts the K like any other out. I certainly wouldn't talk to the press and bemoan the quality of pitchers. I'd spend hours in the cage with my batting coach.
Joe
It's a stigma that will go away, much like the idea that wins and batting average were once good indicators of a pitcher and hitters' value.
<< <i>The numbers bear out that a strikeout really isn't that much more detrimental than any other sort of out, and one could argue that any hitter, let alone a power hitter, having to alter his approach with 2 strikes is only going to worsen the situation, not make it better.
It's a stigma that will go away, much like the idea that wins and batting average were once good indicators of a pitcher and hitters' value. >>
While a strikeout is pretty much the same as any other kind of out, that's not really the point.
Good hitters try to work the count in their favor, increasing their chances at getting a good pitch to hit. When the pitcher has the count in his favor a SMART hitter makes an adjustment by "cutting down" on his swing.
Ted Williams, who knew more about hitting a baseball than anyone on these boards, called it "Baseballic Intellegence".
Joe
<< <i>The numbers bear out that a strikeout really isn't that much more detrimental than any other sort of out, and one could argue that any hitter, let alone a power hitter, having to alter his approach with 2 strikes is only going to worsen the situation, not make it better.
It's a stigma that will go away, much like the idea that wins and batting average were once good indicators of a pitcher and hitters' value. >>
for the most part, you're correct. By linear weight/run expectancy, it breaks down as
Flyout = -0.28 Runs
Groundout = -0.24 Runs
K = -0.30 Runs
I'll also add the reason that guys like Ruth, Williams, or DiMaggio never K'd (aside from the stigma of Ks = bad and pitcher specialization), was they were facing guys with one or perhaps at most - two pitches. Little easier to key in/guess when you have a 50%+ chance of being correct. If Joey Votto was facing a one-pitch Walter Johnson 162 games a year with his approach, I like his chances of hitting .400 every year.
<< <i>
<< <i>The numbers bear out that a strikeout really isn't that much more detrimental than any other sort of out, and one could argue that any hitter, let alone a power hitter, having to alter his approach with 2 strikes is only going to worsen the situation, not make it better.
It's a stigma that will go away, much like the idea that wins and batting average were once good indicators of a pitcher and hitters' value. >>
While a strikeout is pretty much the same as any other kind of out, that's not really the point.
Good hitters try to work the count in their favor, increasing their chances at getting a good pitch to hit. When the pitcher has the count in his favor a SMART hitter makes an adjustment by "cutting down" on his swing.
Ted Williams, who knew more about hitting a baseball than anyone on these boards, called it "Baseballic Intellegence".
Joe >>
Good thing that Teddy Ballgame never had to face specialists in the 7th, 8th, and 9th inning who could throw 95+ and keep him completely off balance. While by no means am I diminishing his ability, but even as great a hitter as Ted would struggle against today's specialists.
Forcing a hitter to adjust his swing depending on the count is asking for a disaster of results.
If the pitcher "grooves" one both types of hitters have a good chance of making solid contact.
However a hitter that does concede will much more likely make better contact, or not even swing if the pitch is out of the strike zone, thus putting himself in a position where the pitcher HAS to throw a better pitch to hit.
I for one think it's a shame that striking out has become accepted.
Joe
<< <i>
I for one think it's a shame that striking out has become accepted.
Joe >>
But the math bears out a strikeout is not statistically worse than any other kind of out. What was once 'accepted' was batting average was a great measure of a hitter. But as the ability to analyze gets better, our ability to rationalize elements of the game gets better too.
The strikeout used to be such a negative mark because people used to think that it was the worst kind of out. Now we know, with advanced stats, that it's not really all that bad an out.
<< <i>Hitters that don't concede with two strikes on them are more likely to strike out or hit a pitch that's borderline, and not get the good part of the bat on the ball. >>
It is the hitter that does change his approach that will be swinging at a borderline pitch. The hitter who does not change his approach will be the one who waits for a better pitch to hit
<< <i>
<< <i>Hitters that don't concede with two strikes on them are more likely to strike out or hit a pitch that's borderline, and not get the good part of the bat on the ball. >>
It is the hitter that does change his approach that will be swinging at a borderline pitch. The hitter who does not change his approach will be the one who waits for a better pitch to hit >>
You don't understand what I mean by concede. To concede is not to hack away at pitches, but to shorten up your swing a bit and hit the ball "where it's pitched".
<< <i>
<< <i>
I for one think it's a shame that striking out has become accepted.
Joe >>
But the math bears out a strikeout is not statistically worse than any other kind of out. What was once 'accepted' was batting average was a great measure of a hitter. But as the ability to analyze gets better, our ability to rationalize elements of the game gets better too.
The strikeout used to be such a negative mark because people used to think that it was the worst kind of out. Now we know, with advanced stats, that it's not really all that bad an out. >>
If you are going to accept the fact that you are going to make an out, then you are correct, a strikeout isn't much different than any other kind of out.
Watching players flail away at pitches, sometimes missing by 6 inches or a foot, makes me sick. The "math" should take into consideration that a player might actually succeed once in a while instead of giving up the at bat. That's why the players mentioned had high batting averages as well as good power numbers. Mickey Mantle's final batting average fell under .300 for this exact reason.
The goal of all strikeout prone batters should be to cut down on whifs and increase walks and hits.
There's nothing wrong with a pitcher challenging a hitter with a good hard fastball and the hitter strikes out in accepting the challenge.
By the way, according to your numbers, it looks like the strikeout IS the worst kind of out. When you start striking out nearly 200 times a season that increases the negative effect you quoted.
Joe
We're not TRYING to make outs and compare them, we are trying to get hits and walks instead!
Joe
<< <i>You don't understand what I mean by concede. To concede is not to hack away at pitches, but to shorten up your swing a bit and hit the ball "where it's pitched". >>
But that doesn't mean that the hitter who doesn't take that approach will swing at a borderline pitch or a pitch out of the strike zone as you originally claimed
<< <i>Watching players flail away at pitches, sometimes missing by 6 inches or a foot, makes me sick. The "math" should take into consideration that a player might actually succeed once in a while instead of giving up the at bat. That's why the players mentioned had high batting averages as well as good power numbers. Mickey Mantle's final batting average fell under .300 for this exact reason. >>
The "Math" you're talking about can easily be figured out by obp and slg. If the strikeouts from Prince Fielder and Mike Napoli hurt them so much, someone with a lower strikeout rate should have better hit, walk and homerun rates. Why do their teams refuse to give at-bats to those players?
<< <i>
If you are going to accept the fact that you are going to make an out, then you are correct, a strikeout isn't much different than any other kind of out.
>>
I never said the hitter is going to accept the fact they they're going to make an out. I simply said that a strikeout, as the numbers bear out, don't hurt teams as much as the 'old school' thought they did. Resisting this information that is readily available doesn't make you a better student of the game, it means you are refusing to look at new information and assimilate it into your analysis. Just like the 'old school' used to think that BA and RBI were important, the statistics prove they mean very little in determining a hitter's true value. The same with strikeouts.
<< <i>Watching players flail away at pitches, sometimes missing by 6 inches or a foot, makes me sick. The "math" should take into consideration that a player might actually succeed once in a while instead of giving up the at bat. That's why the players mentioned had high batting averages as well as good power numbers. Mickey Mantle's final batting average fell under .300 for this exact reason. >>
It's funny you bring up Mickey Mantle as your example. In his PRIME (ages 26-29) he averaged 120+ K's per year. His batting average (which is a ridiculous stat to use but we'll go with it for your sake) started going downhill at 33. You think that after 13 years in the bigs Mantle suddenly stopped caring how to hit properly? Or maybe it was father time finally catching up to him? By the way, Mantle LED THE LEAGUE in K's five times, and K'd over 100 times 8 times in his career.
<< <i>The goal of all strikeout prone batters should be to cut down on whifs and increase walks and hits. >>
Says you. One of the greatest hitters of all time, Reggie Jackson, is the career leader in K's. When discussion Reggie, at what point in that discussion is his career strikeout total mentioned? Ever?
<< <i>There's nothing wrong with a pitcher challenging a hitter with a good hard fastball and the hitter strikes out in accepting the challenge. >>
This statement means exactly nothing.
<< <i>By the way, according to your numbers, it looks like the strikeout IS the worst kind of out. When you start striking out nearly 200 times a season that increases the negative effect you quoted. >>
It is statistically insignificant. And if K's were so egregious, then why have power hitters (the ones most prone to striking out) ALWAYS commanded the most money in baseball?
<< <i>We're not TRYING to make outs and compare them, we are trying to get hits and walks instead! >>
I never said hitters were trying to make outs. Please actually read what I said and stop putting words in my mouth. What I said is a strikeout isn't this great, big, bad thing that you make it out to be. The best hitters generate outs 60-65% of the time. All I was saying is a hitter generating one of those outs via K isn't as damaging and world-ending as you'd like to make it out to be.
By the way, the league leader last year in WAR (wins above replacement)? Mike Trout. 139 K's. 2011? Matt Kemp. 159 K's. The idea that a hitter generating a lot of strikeouts somehow diminishes their value is as out of date as your idea that batting average is a worthy stat for analyzing hitters.
That's a simple fact.
Batting average in conjunction WITH OBP and SLG is the best way to measure the truly great hitters.
In regards to this post which you are constantly trying to detour into your own statistical quagmire, you are completely missing the point.
Players like DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, and Musial were able to hit for power and at the same time maintain a batting average at about .320 or above. They did that by "conceding to the pitcher" with two strikes, thus cutting down on strikeouts and getting a few more "batting average" hits (better than any kind of out).
Even great hitters like Mantle, Mays and Aaron ended up with lifetime BA's around .300. Mantle and Mays NEVER conceded with two strikes and Aaron became a more one dimensional hitter when he decided to chase Ruth's record.
Reggie is a perfect example AGAINST your argument, he would have been a much better hitter had he worked on striking out less as his career progressed. He CERTAINLY was not as good as the above mentioned hitters because while he had the power numbers he had a much lower batting average. He also walked 100 times in a season and batted .300 exactly once in his career. A great slugger, but not a great hitter.
Getting on base........GOOD. Striking out.............BAD
<< <i>
Batting average in conjunction WITH OBP and SLG is the best way to measure the truly great hitters.
>>
No, OBP already factors in batting average, then adds walks. BA by itself is a meaningless statistic.
<< <i>Players like DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, and Musial were able to hit for power and at the same time maintain a batting average at about .320 or above. They did that by "conceding to the pitcher" with two strikes, thus cutting down on strikeouts and getting a few more "batting average" hits (better than any kind of out). >>
Either back this up with statistics (OBP with 2 strike counts) or you're just making it up to suit your side. Babe Ruth led the league in strikeouts FIVE TIMES. Good lord do you even look up the players you decide to include? And you continue to include players from an era before integration, before pitching specialists, all in a pathetic and desperate attempt to prop up your losing argument.
<< <i>Even great hitters like Mantle, Mays and Aaron ended up with lifetime BA's around .300. Mantle and Mays NEVER conceded with two strikes and Aaron became a more one dimensional hitter when he decided to chase Ruth's record. >>
False. Aaron got old. Like every player, their skills faded. And NEVER conceded? Give me a break. Again, either back this up with stats or it didn't happen.
Look, I get it, you think the players of old were amazing creatures who had infinitely better skillsets than the players of today. Fact is, the players of the 50s and 60s didn't have to face (a) pitching specialists, (b) anywhere near the integration of international players that they do today, or (c) a travel schedule like they have now.
<< <i>Reggie is a perfect example AGAINST your argument, he would have been a much better hitter had he worked on striking out less as his career progressed. He CERTAINLY was not as good as the above mentioned hitters because while he had the power numbers he had a much lower batting average. He also walked 100 times in a season and batted .300 exactly once in his career. A great slugger, but not a great hitter. >>
SAYS YOU. You have this mind-numbing bent against power hitters. Power hitters strike out! They always have! It's in their nature.
<< <i>Getting on base........GOOD. Striking out.............BAD >>
And yet you REFUSE to acknowledge OBP as a stat and continue to stick to your antiquated idea that batting average is somehow the end-all, be-all statistic! Forget it! You're too delusional and wrapped up in your old way of thinking to even grasp that there are newer, BETTER ways to determine a hitter's worth!
"Fresh Arms Keep Coming
The days of a starter going deep into a game and then giving way to his closer appear long gone. Managers now have extensive scouting reports of the opponent’s hitters against his pitchers. This has led to more specialization, more pitching changes — and more strikeouts. Hitters are now facing more fresh arms and ever-diminishing odds.
In 1924, the year with the fewest strikeouts, teams used a single pitcher nearly half of the time. Last season, the average was four per game."
"Batting averages have declined for six straight seasons, largely because averages of hitters with two strikes are at the lowest point in the 25 years since the statistic has been kept.
Batting averages have remained fairly constant when a hitter has fewer than two strikes in the count...
... but batting averages of hitters with two strikes have fallen, as more hitters stay aggressive with two strikes instead of just trying to make contact. This is largely because home runs are often rewarded with more playing time and larger contracts. "
So since they don't have stats for situational hitting by count going back more than 25 years, I guess Joe Banzai, you can sit comfortably in your own mind thinking that hitters of old were amazing 2-strike hitters.
<< <i>Players like DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, and Musial were able to hit for power and at the same time maintain a batting average at about .320 or above. They did that by "conceding to the pitcher" with two strikes, thus cutting down on strikeouts and getting a few more "batting average" hits (better than any kind of out). >>
Do you really believe that this is the reason Stan Musial was a better hitter than Kelly Shoppach. All he has to do is start conceding with two strikes and he would be among the very best hitters in baseball history
Every single person agrees that putting the ball in play is superior to a strikeout. The issue is how much value can a player who sometimes struggle to put the ball in play offer. For players like Mickey Mantle or Mike Schmidt the answer is more than most anyone else in history. For players like Prince Fielder, Jay Bruce and Mike Napoli it is still far more than anyone else their teams could give at-bats to
<< <i>
<< <i>
Batting average in conjunction WITH OBP and SLG is the best way to measure the truly great hitters.
>>
No, OBP already factors in batting average, then adds walks. BA by itself is a meaningless statistic.
<< <i>Players like DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, and Musial were able to hit for power and at the same time maintain a batting average at about .320 or above. They did that by "conceding to the pitcher" with two strikes, thus cutting down on strikeouts and getting a few more "batting average" hits (better than any kind of out). >>
Either back this up with statistics (OBP with 2 strike counts) or you're just making it up to suit your side. Babe Ruth led the league in strikeouts FIVE TIMES. Good lord do you even look up the players you decide to include? And you continue to include players from an era before integration, before pitching specialists, all in a pathetic and desperate attempt to prop up your losing argument.
<< <i>Even great hitters like Mantle, Mays and Aaron ended up with lifetime BA's around .300. Mantle and Mays NEVER conceded with two strikes and Aaron became a more one dimensional hitter when he decided to chase Ruth's record. >>
False. Aaron got old. Like every player, their skills faded. And NEVER conceded? Give me a break. Again, either back this up with stats or it didn't happen.
Look, I get it, you think the players of old were amazing creatures who had infinitely better skillsets than the players of today. Fact is, the players of the 50s and 60s didn't have to face (a) pitching specialists, (b) anywhere near the integration of international players that they do today, or (c) a travel schedule like they have now.
<< <i>Reggie is a perfect example AGAINST your argument, he would have been a much better hitter had he worked on striking out less as his career progressed. He CERTAINLY was not as good as the above mentioned hitters because while he had the power numbers he had a much lower batting average. He also walked 100 times in a season and batted .300 exactly once in his career. A great slugger, but not a great hitter. >>
SAYS YOU. You have this mind-numbing bent against power hitters. Power hitters strike out! They always have! It's in their nature.
<< <i>Getting on base........GOOD. Striking out.............BAD >>
And yet you REFUSE to acknowledge OBP as a stat and continue to stick to your antiquated idea that batting average is somehow the end-all, be-all statistic! Forget it! You're too delusional and wrapped up in your old way of thinking to even grasp that there are newer, BETTER ways to determine a hitter's worth! >>
Anyone who states that Batting Average is " by itself a meaningless statistic" is a complete moron.
I actually LOVE power hitters (but not Adam Dunn). My favorite player was Harmon Killebrew and if you look at his stats, even though he was a big strike out guy, he improved his strikeouts and increased his walks consistantly almost every year from 1963-1969. I get my information from baseball books written by people, not computers, and in interviews by the pitchers of his time, the pitchers said that Killebrew was a guy they could strike out fairly easy early in his career, but he made a conscious decision to cut down on his strikeouts and increase his walks, making him a tougher out and a better hitter. THIS IS THE MINDSET I AM REFERRING TO, NOT A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.
I clearly stated that I looked at OBP, but of course, as usual, you just want to argue. The BEST hitters combine high batting average, they also walk a lot and they have a good SLG%. By including BA I am looking at ALL the indicators. A .320 hitter who walks a lot is more valuable than a .260 hitter who walks a lot if they have comparable SLG%
Your comment about Ruth is another moronic statement, he may have led the league in strikeouts, but that was when NOBODY LIKED TO GET STRUCK OUT! That is the point, the modern player isn't concerned enough about striking out, not just the modern day power hitter.
By the way, Henry Aaron himself is quoted as saying he never thought of himself as a home run hitter, but as he began to see that he had a chance to overtake Babe Ruth's record he started trying for home runs instead of hitting the ball to all fields. I said Mantle and Mays never conceded with two strikes (quote from Ted Williams in his book "The Hit List") I didn't say that about Aaron, read a little more carefully please.
Good night ladies and gentlemen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Players like DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, and Musial were able to hit for power and at the same time maintain a batting average at about .320 or above. They did that by "conceding to the pitcher" with two strikes, thus cutting down on strikeouts and getting a few more "batting average" hits (better than any kind of out). >>
Do you really believe that this is the reason Stan Musial was a better hitter than Kelly Shoppach. All he has to do is start conceding with two strikes and he would be among the very best hitters in baseball history
Every single person agrees that putting the ball in play is superior to a strikeout. The issue is how much value can a player who sometimes struggle to put the ball in play offer. For players like Mickey Mantle or Mike Schmidt the answer is more than most anyone else in history. For players like Prince Fielder, Jay Bruce and Mike Napoli it is still far more than anyone else their teams could give at-bats to >>
I don't know or care who Kelly Shoppach is, he will be a better hitter if he "concedes" with two strikes.
In the 1969 Ted Williams became manager of the Washington Senators, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER raised his batting average (1985fan please ignore this meaningless point) simply by following Ted's advice to first, get a good pitch to hit and second, concede with two strikes. His philosophy was to try to get the pitcher to throw you the pitch you wanted, not the one he wanted to throw.
I am simply stating that this is a better approach to hitting than to swing the same with two strikes as when you have the count in your favor.
Thank you
<< <i>I clearly stated that I looked at OBP, but of course, as usual, you just want to argue. The BEST hitters combine high batting average, they also walk a lot and they have a good SLG%. By including BA I am looking at ALL the indicators. A .320 hitter who walks a lot is more valuable than a .260 hitter who walks a lot if they have comparable SLG% >>
Over 500 at-bats a .320 is only worth less than 15 runs more than a .260 hitter with identical walk rates and slugging percentages.
But comparing a career .256 hitter with double the strikeout rate as a career .313 hitter, Harmon Killebrew did slightly more to help his team score runs as Nomar Garciaparra, per game. But that's easy to see by comparing ops. Both did more than Don Mattingly who had a strikeout rate one-third of what Killebrew had. Again, easy to see from ops
A team that has hitters with higher ops will always score more runs than the team with higher batting average and fewer strikeouts
<< <i>Your comment about Ruth is another moronic statement, he may have led the league in strikeouts, but that was when NOBODY LIKED TO GET STRUCK OUT! That is the point, the modern player isn't concerned enough about striking out, not just the modern day power hitter. >>
Perhaps it has more to do with the game changing rather than the personal values the players have. There were some years when the entire league -- including pitchers -- had a lower strikeout rate than Rod Carew had during his career
Like with Killebrew, his strikeout rate dropped significantly late in his career, from 19% to 12%, was that because of his change in approach with two strikes or was because that was the year the mound was lowered?
<< <i>I don't know or care who Kelly Shoppach is, he will be a better hitter if he "concedes" with two strikes. >>
Shoppach was one of the players mentioned in the article, a journeyman backup catcher, career .220 hitter [do have to wonder if you have no knowledge, nor care of the guy why you could know what would make him a better hitter]. More than half of all his plate appearances go to two-strikes. Perhaps the real problem is not following Williams' first piece of advice: when he does get a good pitch to hit, he just rarely hits it well regardless of the count
<< <i>
<< <i>Your comment about Ruth is another moronic statement, he may have led the league in strikeouts, but that was when NOBODY LIKED TO GET STRUCK OUT! That is the point, the modern player isn't concerned enough about striking out, not just the modern day power hitter. >>
Perhaps it has more to do with the game changing rather than the personal values the players have. There were some years when the entire league -- including pitchers -- had a lower strikeout rate than Rod Carew had during his career
Like with Killebrew, his strikeout rate dropped significantly late in his career, from 19% to 12%, was that because of his change in approach with two strikes or was because that was the year the mound was lowered? >>
As I stated, Killebrew was my favorite player growing up. I have every book written about him and I can say without a doubt that HE STATED he tried to reduce his strikeout totals especially after leading the league in 1962.
I don't believe the mound was lowered until 1968 or 1969.
You are absolutely correct in the fact that the game has changed, some for the better, some not so much.
FUNNY you should bring up Carew, I saw more of him than Killebrew, as I was too young to see Harmon's first few years. Carew waltzed into the HOF while Killebrew had to wait 4 years. The writers sure gave Carew a lot more credit for his 7 batting championships than Killebrew's 6 home run titles. I didn't agree then and I still don't.
I simply feel, as the OP brought up, that the strikeout, while perhaps not as bad as was once thought, is being ignored almost completely, and not just by the power hitters.
I think baseball is a great game. It was great in the 1960's when I watched it as a boy growing up in Minnesota, and it's still great today.
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't know or care who Kelly Shoppach is, he will be a better hitter if he "concedes" with two strikes. >>
Shoppach was one of the players mentioned in the article, a journeyman backup catcher, career .220 hitter [do have to wonder if you have no knowledge, nor care of the guy why you could know what would make him a better hitter]. More than half of all his plate appearances go to two-strikes. Perhaps the real problem is not following Williams' first piece of advice: when he does get a good pitch to hit, he just rarely hits it well regardless of the count >>
I didn't read the article, simply because 1985fans arguing style(?) is so asinine.
One of my biggest pet peeves on these boards is examples like the one comparing a .220 hitter to one of the all time greats. I was making the comparison between high average, high OPS players. Both Mantle and Mays were known for being big swingers with two strikes on them. Mays was able to hit over .345 twice and Mantle was able to hit .353 or better twice. My point was that they both ended up with lifetime averages around .300 while the others I mentioned had much higher lifetime BA even while hitting between 475-714 home runs. VERY FEW members of the 500 HR club (I know Musial didn't make it) had averages 20+ points above .300. The best of the best!?!?!?
Mantle has often said that he was disappointed at having his average drop below .300.
However, I will say I don't know if Shoppach conceded with two strikes or not, perhaps he was and he just wasn't that good a hitter?
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>I clearly stated that I looked at OBP, but of course, as usual, you just want to argue. The BEST hitters combine high batting average, they also walk a lot and they have a good SLG%. By including BA I am looking at ALL the indicators. A .320 hitter who walks a lot is more valuable than a .260 hitter who walks a lot if they have comparable SLG% >>
Over 500 at-bats a .320 is only worth less than 15 runs more than a .260 hitter with identical walk rates and slugging percentages.
>>
An extra run every 10 games or so, not earth shattering, but most managers would love those 15 runs.
Reminds me of a quote from "Bull Durham" where "Crash" Davis is explaining to "Nuke" how 1 extra hit a week turns a .270 hitter into a .300 hitter.
Very very few power hitters have been able to get those extra hits.
I appreciate the adult way you debate.
Joe
<< <i> I was making the comparison between high average, high OPS players. >>
Which isn't any better than lower average, high ops
In 1946 Musial had a .365 batting average while striking out in 4.2% of at-bats. In 1955 Mantle had a .304 batting average while striking out in 15.2% of at-bats
In 1958 Musial had a .337 batting average while striking out in 4.8% of at-bats. In 1960 Mantle had a .275 average while striking out in 19.4% of at-bats
Yet they had nearly identical values as hitters which is easy to see from ops. The 44 extra home runs and 79 extra walks for Mantle make up for the 80 fewer singles 43 fewer doubles. The strike out rates are completely immaterial
<< <i>
Over 500 at-bats a .320 is only worth less than 15 runs more than a .260 hitter with identical walk rates and slugging percentages.
>>
An extra run every 10 games or so, not earth shattering, but most managers would love those 15 runs.
>>
We all agree those hits are better than outs. But what about the .320 hitter and .260 hitter with identical ops? Aren't those homeruns and walks worth something, too? What about the .320 hitter with a lower ops than the .260 hitter? At some point, the extra homeruns and walks are worth more than the singles that being given up. And when that happens, there is absolutely no point in being concerned with strikeouts
<< <i>
<< <i> I was making the comparison between high average, high OPS players. >>
Which isn't any better than lower average, high ops
In 1946 Musial had a .365 batting average while striking out in 4.2% of at-bats. In 1955 Mantle had a .304 batting average while striking out in 15.2% of at-bats
In 1958 Musial had a .337 batting average while striking out in 4.8% of at-bats. In 1960 Mantle had a .275 average while striking out in 19.4% of at-bats
Yet they had nearly identical values as hitters which is easy to see from ops. The 44 extra home runs and 79 extra walks for Mantle make up for the 80 fewer singles 43 fewer doubles. The strike out rates are completely immaterial >>
No argument here. Yes, these 2 guys were almost exactly equal in value for their careers as measured by OPS. Musial was the example with the lowest HR total and LOTS of at bats.
Musial was able to put up those numbers and do it for an additional 4+ years.
Take a look at Jimmy Foxx in comparison to Mantle, MUCH more similar number of at bats and home runs, but Foxx beats him in OPS 1.038 to .977 even though Mantle walked about 300 more times. I think this shows that the combination of power and high average wins, even with Mantles higher walk total, about 15 more a year. Foxx averaged about 22 more hits per year.
Mantle walked A LOT. I wonder what Mantle's numbers would have been like had he not suffered so many serious injuries. He was an incredible hitter. Would also have liked to see what he did if he just batted right handed, it was a nearly perfect swing.
I wasn't criticizing Mantles strikeouts, Mantle himself was saddened by his lifetime average dipping below .300. Early in his career he was able to bunt his way on (bunted a lot with two strikes, again, something I read by Ted Williams) to help maintain his average and avoid some of the strikeouts.
Joe
<< <i>
In the 1969 Ted Williams became manager of the Washington Senators, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER raised his batting average (1985fan please ignore this meaningless point) simply by following Ted's advice to first, get a good pitch to hit and second, concede with two strikes. His philosophy was to try to get the pitcher to throw you the pitch you wanted, not the one he wanted to throw.
>>
He 'raised' team average from a pathetic .224 to a somewhat less pathetic .251. By the way, the team struck out a total of 60 times less. 60 out of nearly 6200 plate appearances. That is a .009% decrease in strikeouts. In other words, statistically insignificant. Let's also conveniently ignore the changing at the SS and RF positions. In 1968, SS Ron Hansen batted .185. In 1969 SS Ed Brinkman hit .266. In 1968 RF Ed Stroud hit .239. In 1969? RF Lee Maye hit .290. These 2 upgrades alone are primarily responsible for the mild uptick in team batting average. And if Ted was such an amazing hitting instructor, why did team batting FALL to .238 in 1970?
<< <i>I am simply stating that this is a better approach to hitting than to swing the same with two strikes as when you have the count in your favor.
Thank you >>
By the way, the only reason I am using batting average is your continued insistence that it means something. But by using your own statistics, it defeats the very notion that Ted was some miracle worker in getting hitters to hit better.
I'm sorry you don't like the way I debate. I'm sorry you don't like my refuting your ideas point by point. It doesn't make what I say any less correct. The only people clutching at batting average as a means to judge a hitter appear to be you, Tim McCarver, and Dusty Baker. It's an antiquated idea that no longer has any place in baseball debate.
<< <i>
Mantle walked A LOT. I wonder what Mantle's numbers would have been like had he not suffered so many serious injuries. He was an incredible hitter. Would also have liked to see what he did if he just batted right handed, it was a nearly perfect swing.
>>
He also struck out a lot. Like Ruth, he led the league in K's 5 times. Top 3 10 times. Power hitters are more prone to K's. I would have loved to hear the conversation of a manager telling the Mick to choke up with 2 strikes, or that he was hurting his team by striking out so much.
<< <i>I wasn't criticizing Mantles strikeouts, Mantle himself was saddened by his lifetime average dipping below .300. Early in his career he was able to bunt his way on (bunted a lot with two strikes, again, something I read by Ted Williams) to help maintain his average and avoid some of the strikeouts.
Joe >>
Mantle was one of the fastest guys in the league. Most power hitters are exactly the opposite of this. It's not a strategy that's employable, let alone advisable.
<< <i>Musial was able to put up those numbers and do it for an additional 4+ years. >>
High strikeouts hurt your knees and make you drink too much?
<< <i>Take a look at Jimmy Foxx in comparison to Mantle, MUCH more similar number of at bats and home runs, but Foxx beats him in OPS 1.038 to .977 even though Mantle walked about 300 more times. I think this shows that the combination of power and high average wins, even with Mantles higher walk total, about 15 more a year. Foxx averaged about 22 more hits per year. >>
Again, the entire league in the 30s hit a lot better than the 50s with more runs, higher ops and fewer strikeouts. Foxx was much closer to double the league strikeout rate than Mantle ever was. During Foxx's career the number of strikeouts per game 3.52 during Mantle's career it was 5.03.
If anything Foxx is another great example of why strike outs should be accepted for a hitter if he also walks and hits homeruns
<< <i>
<< <i>Musial was able to put up those numbers and do it for an additional 4+ years. >>
High strikeouts hurt your knees and make you drink too much?
Moronic statement doesn't deserve a response. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you write that?
<< <i>Take a look at Jimmy Foxx in comparison to Mantle, MUCH more similar number of at bats and home runs, but Foxx beats him in OPS 1.038 to .977 even though Mantle walked about 300 more times. I think this shows that the combination of power and high average wins, even with Mantles higher walk total, about 15 more a year. Foxx averaged about 22 more hits per year. >>
Again, the entire league in the 30s hit a lot better than the 50s with more runs, higher ops and fewer strikeouts. Foxx was much closer to double the league strikeout rate than Mantle ever was. During Foxx's career the number of strikeouts per game 3.52 during Mantle's career it was 5.03.
If anything Foxx is another great example of why strike outs should be accepted for a hitter if he also walks and hits homeruns >>
So you are now ignoring my example of how a higher batting average is a good thing and changing it to a strikeout/different era debate. I was specifically responding to the idiotic statement that "batting average means nothing" and your comment that said it didn't matter either as long as you had a good OPS. A higher batting average improves OPS and last time I looked a hit was better than a walk, even if only by a little.
<< <i>So you are now ignoring my example of how a higher batting average is a good thing and changing it to a strikeout/different era debate. I was specifically responding to the idiotic statement that "batting average means nothing" and your comment that said it didn't matter either as long as you had a good OPS. A higher batting average improves OPS and last time I looked a hit was better than a walk, even if only by a little. >>
A hit is better than a walk, but a home run is far better than a single. It is actually ops that does account for the difference between a hit and a walk, but batting average doesn't account for the difference between home runs and singles
A higher batting average is always better, but often times it is not enough to offset the differences in walks and home runs. And we will almost always be able to figure that out by looking at ops. Which is the reason batting average is meaningless when we have other stats that address everything batting average measure plus more
The only answer you had to the Mantle / Musial comparison was that Musial had a longer career. But comparing years when their batting averages were 50-points apart, but nearly identical ops, offensively Mantle helped the Yankees almost exactly as much as Musial helped the Cardinals -- the extra singles and doubles from Musial were easily offset by the extra walks and home runs from Mantle
If two hitters have a 50 point difference in ops, the one with the higher ops will virtually always do more to help his team
If two hitters have a 50 point difference in batting average, it will be easy to find examples where the one with the lower average did more to help his team
(if given equal plate appearances)
Does anyone really disagree with that?
<< <i>
<< <i>So you are now ignoring my example of how a higher batting average is a good thing and changing it to a strikeout/different era debate. I was specifically responding to the idiotic statement that "batting average means nothing" and your comment that said it didn't matter either as long as you had a good OPS. A higher batting average improves OPS and last time I looked a hit was better than a walk, even if only by a little. >>
A hit is better than a walk, but a home run is far better than a single. It is actually ops that does account for the difference between a hit and a walk, but batting average doesn't account for the difference between home runs and singles
A higher batting average is always better, but often times it is not enough to offset the differences in walks and home runs. And we will almost always be able to figure that out by looking at ops. Which is the reason batting average is meaningless when we have other stats that address everything batting average measure plus more
The only answer you had to the Mantle / Musial comparison was that Musial had a longer career. But comparing years when their batting averages were 50-points apart, but nearly identical ops, offensively Mantle helped the Yankees almost exactly as much as Musial helped the Cardinals -- the extra singles and doubles from Musial were easily offset by the extra walks and home runs from Mantle >>
The answer I had to the Mantle/Musial comparison was that they had nearly equal offensive productivity during their careers when looking at OPS. I agree, and have always agreed that OPS is is a better way to measure a batters value than batting average alone.
The area where Musial is a more desirable player is his longevity. He gave the Cardinals more years at the same high level.
<< <i>In easy way to put this:
If two hitters have a 50 point difference in ops, the one with the higher ops will virtually always do more to help his team
If two hitters have a 50 point difference in batting average, it will be easy to find examples where the one with the lower average did more to help his team
(if given equal plate appearances)
Does anyone really disagree with that? >>
I agree completely with the first statement. The second statement doesn't give enough information. Two players with a 50 point difference in BA with the same number of AB only proves one player gets more hits per times at bat.
The batter with the lower BA may have a higher or nearly equal OPS and/or may be a superior defensive player at a tougher position.
The player with the higher BA could just as easily be a better hitter and a better all around player. Depends on facts not in evidence here.
<< <i> Depends on facts not in evidence here. >>
Which is exactly what gives batting average so little meaning. There are other stats that take both batting average and those other facts into account
<< <i>
<< <i> Depends on facts not in evidence here. >>
Which is exactly what gives batting average so little meaning. There are other stats that take both batting average and those other facts into account >>
As you have said yourself; "a higher batting average is always better".
The post is/was about strikeouts. I will state for the final time that MY FEELING is, today's hitters (not power hitters, just hitters) are striking out too much.
I don't think it's a disaster, or means the end of baseball, in fact I don't think it's really THAT big of a deal. I just happen to agree with MattyC.
<< <i>
The post is/was about strikeouts. I will state for the final time that MY FEELING is, today's hitters (not power hitters, just hitters) are striking out too much.
>>
Your feeling is that hitters strike out too much because they lack the fundamental understanding or patience to be good hitters in all counts. You feel that players from yesteryear were superior in this aspect, despite overwhelming evidence that shows plenty of big-name hitters from years past had tons of strikeouts.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests altering your approach at the plate on different counts has anything resembling success, just your 'feeling'. You bring up Ted Williams and his ability to coach hitters up in his first year as a manager, despite ignoring two of the biggest albatrosses in terms of low batting average weren't there his first year as a manager.
<< <i>I don't think it's a disaster, or means the end of baseball, in fact I don't think it's really THAT big of a deal. I just happen to agree with MattyC. >>
But you must think it's a big deal, the amount of effort you have put into posting on this topic.
<< <i>Says you. One of the greatest hitters of all time, Reggie Jackson, is the career leader in K's. When discussion Reggie, at what point in that discussion is his career strikeout total mentioned? Ever? >>
I think in pretty much every discussion or article I've ever seen about Reggie, the fact that he's the career leader in K's gets mentioned.
FWIW, Reggie is 80th in OPS+, tied with Evan Longoria, Norm Cash, Jeff Heath, Bob Johnson, and David Ortiz.
<< <i>
<< <i>
The post is/was about strikeouts. I will state for the final time that MY FEELING is, today's hitters (not power hitters, just hitters) are striking out too much.
>>
Your feeling is that hitters strike out too much because they lack the fundamental understanding or patience to be good hitters in all counts. You feel that players from yesteryear were superior in this aspect, despite overwhelming evidence that shows plenty of big-name hitters from years past had tons of strikeouts.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests altering your approach at the plate on different counts has anything resembling success, just your 'feeling'. You bring up Ted Williams and his ability to coach hitters up in his first year as a manager, despite ignoring two of the biggest albatrosses in terms of low batting average weren't there his first year as a manager.
<< <i>I don't think it's a disaster, or means the end of baseball, in fact I don't think it's really THAT big of a deal. I just happen to agree with MattyC. >>
But you must think it's a big deal, the amount of effort you have put into posting on this topic. >>
Now your arguing with how I feel about it. Since you are right about everything, I must be lying. You sir are a MORON!
End of the day, I believe everyone can agree with this simple statement:
A single or walk is better than a K/out.
If a skilled batter consciously adjusts his approach with two strikes, doesn't try to pull the ball for example, and goes with the pitch, focusing on contact-- this approach will likely lead to a greater chance of reaching base. The prevalence of the K today is indicative of better pitching but also speaks to batters' pitch selection and plate discipline. If they do what they can with respect to the latter, the occasional result vs an out might really wind up helping the team win.
<< <i>
A single or walk is better than a K/out.
>>
Correct. But the notion that a strikeout is significantly worse than a fly out or ground out is incorrect.
<< <i>If a skilled batter consciously adjusts his approach with two strikes, doesn't try to pull the ball for example, and goes with the pitch, focusing on contact-- this approach will likely lead to a greater chance of reaching base. The prevalence of the K today is indicative of better pitching but also speaks to batters' pitch selection and plate discipline. If they do what they can with respect to the latter, the occasional result vs an out might really wind up helping the team win. >>
There's also a school of thinking that says hitters, like all baseball players, are creatures of habit. Expecting a change in approach depending on pitch count is expecting failure. Strikeouts are more prevalent now because there are more power hitters now than ever before. But, as can be seen, power hitters throughout history have always had a propensity for striking out.