AN OUT IS AN OUT???

[chinamigarden]

No no no... you're doing it wrong.

You're talking about the "before." But I made it abundantly clear we're talking about the result.

A strike out is no different than a pop out. You're talking about a pop up, which absolutely could drop.

This is what I mean when I say people need to actually take the time to understand what the analytics folks are actually saying before jumping to the opposite conclusion.

You replied to me originally, what you responded to was;
"Any ball hit into play is better then a strikeout, unless it leads to a double play. But so many things can happen when the ball is hit. An error or a runner advancing on the out. Put the ball in play and good things happen'

Now you are saying that I am not clear about what we are talking about. No, its obvious that you are not clear about what I was talking about. Somehow you took my any ball hit into play into a pop out to the pitcher. That's not what we were talking about, until you created a straw-man argument to try to prove a point. A ball hit into play is always better then a strikeout.

 

[canyonjoe]

An out is an out the majority of the time. If I have my number 3 hitter up in the 3rd inning and runner on 2nd no outs I want her to drive that run in. If she has 2 strikes I would rather her take the best chance to trade places with the runner versus hitting a grounder to second.

I think almost all run probabilities show it's better to try and do damage than to just move the runner.

However, these run charts don't take into account that in a lot of circumstances you want only 1 run. In that case moving runners and bunting are much more important. That's when getting a ball in play makes a difference. The throw from SS to first is a lot harder in the bottom of the 7th with the winning run on 3rd and 2 outs than it is in the 4th inning.

Overall though throughout a season I would prefer a higher OPS than a small drop in K's.

 

[MadBandit22]

I had a stupid typo. I meant to say "I guess my only question is why did you reply to my post when it's clear you didn't actually read it?"

Because your response indicated you didn't actually read what I wrote.

If I replied obviously I read it and understood it.

 

[MadBandit22]

If I replied obviously I read it and understood it.

A ball put into play has to be fielded cleanly and a good throw needs to be made and a catch/tag applied to secure the ball for the out. So by my count that’s 3 things that need to happen to get the out.
Neither of those 3 acts are a given at any level of play.
A strikeout takes the catcher to secure the ball. 1 act.
It really doesn’t matter before, during, or after with analytics.
A strikeout is a non productive out. A swing on the 1st pitch out is non productive to me unless a runner is able to advance.
The only productive strikeout is a long at bat say at least ten pitches where you really make the pitcher grind it out to get you out.
I want the ball in play as much as possible. Make the defense work. Errors are common and can really shake-up a team especially a pitcher. Very frustrating for a pitcher when your working your butt off and defense is not solid. Makes the pitcher press more and try to get more K’s to avoid more miscues.

 

[eagle6]

Explain to me how a pop out to the pitcher is better than a strike out.

What people don't really seem to get is that the result is what's virtually the same (it's true a ground out that moves the runner is marginally better than a strike out, but not so much better as to be something we should be teaching or trying to do). The point is that the outs are worth about the same, not that hitting the ball is somehow not better than not hitting the ball. Does that make sense?

There's a reason why those who understand analytics put so much stock into a pitcher's strike out rate. Striking batters out is objectively better than letting them hit the ball (because it's been proven that pitchers tend to have little control over balls in play). HOWEVER, and this is where everybody in this thread isn't quite understanding, the outs are basically the same. A strike out is exactly as bad for the offense as a weak infield pop out.

Here's a somewhat unrealistic example that illustrates the point. Take two hitters. Every single stat they have is identical, except one hitter struck out 100 times and hit 0 pop outs. The other struck out 50 times and popped out to the infield 50 times. If you're arguing that the second hitter is better/more valuable because of 50 more balls in play, I'm going to take issue with that.

Also, a walk is, again, objectively, not as valuable (which means "does not increase run expectancy as much") as a hit, though in certain instances it has the same practical value (a lead-off single and a lead-off walk increase run expectancy by virtually the same amount).

tl;dr version - It's important to learn what those who do the analytics are actually saying, because most of the "disagreement" is based on a misunderstanding.

In this example, I totally agree that the outs are the same. Take another unrealistic example and change only that the 50 pop ups to the infield are now 50 flyballs to the outfield. 4-5 are with a runner on second and it moves them to 3rd. 4-5 are with a runner on third and scores a run. Now, those outs are NOT the same.

 

[marriard]

Any ball hit into play has the opportunity to become an error or a misplay and give the offense an opportunity a strike out won't give you. So that pop up that is caught 995 times out of 1000 is better then the strikeout that is a strikeout 1000 out of 1000 times. And that is why, as you pointed out, a pitchers strike out rate is so highly regarded.

This is true for one data point in isolation. Which is why there is situational hitting - sometimes in a particular scenario you need something specific. It also ignores other results from the play - it is not 'put the ball in play for an out' or 'strike out for an out' - that ignores hits, walks, ROE, sac flys, double plays, and other possible outcomes.

The idea of a swinging away versus trying to put ball in play is based on all results over a multiple games, a season or even even years. Over time you are going to get more positive results swinging for it than just putting it in play despite the increased strikeout numbers.

It makes sense - even when you try to put the ball in play there is still going to strike outs (less), easy outs and possibly more singles - and some ROE and probably more walks. The analytics say this isn't as good as the results of additonal extra base hits, hard hit singles, etc, despite the increased strike outs.

These analytics are why MLB has trended so heavily in this direction and that has been filtering down to other levels of baseball as well as softball.

 

[Westwind]

Just for fun, and not statistically valid, I just went to our high school gamechanger page. I sorted columns for most strikeouts to least. In this case, the “free swingers” had less strikeouts. In this teams case, the players that did the most damage also had the least k’s.

I then looked at bb/k ratios. Results were similar but the kid with least strikeouts (most dangerous hitter on team, possibly the conference) took 2 walks for every k. The freeest of free swingers was .750 bb/k. She was a big contributor but this number makes me think that improved pitch selection could make her really dangerous.

The least dangerous hitters had something in common. Most of them take first pitch strikes. I would say most of them were trying to “not pop up”. (Long story on why I think that influenced them.)

I wish there was a column I could sort for how much they work on hitting outside of practice. The most dangerous hitters probably hit outside of practice more. That’s probably the big thing.

Again, very subjective. Micro sample. Not statistically valid. But knowing the players pretty well, I can tell you that attitude comes into success at the plate imho

Edited to add: I missed the most relevant stat!

The free swingers were at the top of OBP too. The Free-est swinger of the teams offensive contributors, who took the least walks, was #3 in OBP. That really surprised me- I did not realize she got on base that much. Her dad always joked that “she goes to the plate with two strikes”.

 

[NJgators14uSPARK]

I think what the main idea is to teach our athletes to develop a heightened level of focus with two strikes. Understand the situation. Reflect on their mindset. Some athletes are able to do that and take full swings, some are more focused when they shorten up. Having said that, whenever we go up to the plate the goal is a QAB. See 6 or more pitches, see 3 pitches after two strikes,, hit the ball hard, or move a runner along. If that is your mindset you have a better chance of a positive result.

 

[uncdrew]

Any ball hit into play has the opportunity to become an error or a misplay and give the offense an opportunity a strike out won't give you. So that pop up that is caught 995 times out of 1000 is better then the strikeout that is a strikeout 1000 out of 1000 times. And that is why, as you pointed out, a pitchers strike out rate is so highly regarded.

In our games, sadly, strikeouts often lead to runners on first base.

Yes, I know that dries up as the girls/catchers improve.

 

[texasheat]

In our games, sadly, strikeouts often lead to runners on first base.

Yes, I know that dries up as the girls/catchers improve.

and you use wristbands at that level? ha ha ha