4/28/06 1:20 pm Brewers (Bush) @ Cubs (Maddux)

[SeriesFinale]

Stinks to lose this one since they might not even get the next two in (especially since I have tickets for them!), and by the time the rescheduled games get played, D-Lee and Prior/Wood could be back and playing effectively.

[brewers19]

Prior/Wood could be back and playing effectively.

 

Haha, right.

[SeriesFinale]

Or we could face Maddux an extra time instead of Glendon Rusch, how about that

[rluzinski]

Strikeouts can give you nothing positive.

 

Didn't the Brewers score a run on a K the other day?

 

BTW, check the teams with the highest strikeout totals and tell me if they are typically struggling to score runs.

[clancyphile]

It was a delayed double-steal, rluzinski. They sent Fielder to second, and when the catcher threw, Jenkins broke for home. Yount and Molitor did the same sort of thing a few times in the 1980s (Yount would go for second, the catcher would throw... and once he threw, Molitor would steal home).

[badgerfan.tgf]

Quote:

---

BTW, check the teams with the highest strikeout totals and tell me if they are typically struggling to score runs.

---

 

I can't believe you are still defending the point that strikeouts are not bad.

[DHonks]

russ, it's a causation thing. When a team has good offensive players, more often than not, they'll score runs. If they strike out a lot, it doesn't matter.

 

The problem is that when a team is bad all around, strikeouts are bad. When a team cannot hit homers or doubles, they can't have high strikeout totals and succeed. Strikeouts as a byproduct of a high slugging percentage are acceptable much of the time. However, strikeouts, in comparison to other outs, are the worst type of out much of the time (not always). Just when an offense scores a lot, they are acceptable.

[mikerollins]

Quote:

---

Didn't the Brewers score a run on a K the other day?

---

 

That's just being silly. They scored on a double steal on a 3rd strike. They didnt score because of the strikeout. It could have occurred on a ball or strike 2. It just happened to be strike 3.

 

Quote:

---

BTW, check the teams with the highest strikeout totals and tell me if they are typically struggling to score runs.

---

 

OK I did.

 

Most strikeouts in the league with league rank in runs in ( )

 

1. Brewers 178 (14)

2. Braves 173 (16)

3. Rangers 169 (9)

4. Florida 160 (28

5. Tampa Bay (17)

6. Reds 157 (2)

7. Padres 153 (29)

8. Indians 150 (1)

9. Rockies 149 (5)

10. Detroit 148 (20)

11. Pittsburgh 146 (26)

12. Seattle 145 (21)

13. Boston 144 (18

14. Washington 143 (24)

15. Oakland 139 (27)

16. Kansas City 135 (30)

 

I think that's a good enough sample size. Now despite the fact that 3 of the teams in the top 10 in strikeouts are in the top 5 in runs. I would argue that out of the 16 top teams listed...the only team with a chance to WIN THE WORLD SERIES is Boston. (Maybe Cleveland or Atlanta).

 

No St. Louis. No Yankees. No Mets. No Giants. No White Sox. No Houston. No Angels. No Phillies. No Blue Jays.

 

I would also argue that the reason that Atlanta and Milwaukee are struggling so much to get any kind of consistency is because they strikeout far too much. But think what you want. I'll continue to think that putting the ball in play gives you a better chance of SOMETHING positive happening. You keep thinking that striking out, walking back to the dugout, and hoping the catcher throws the ball over the pitchers head to advance a runner.

 

**Edited to eliminate the smiley faces casued by the ( ) on FLA and BOS

[Brian the Automator]

[ I would argue that out of the 16 top teams listed...the only team with a chance to WIN THE WORLD SERIES is Boston. ]

 

I think you're circumventing the statement. It's not about what team's going to win the world series, it's about what effect K's have on runs.

 

If we're going to change the argument to what team has the best chance to win the world series, then pitching is certainly an enormous factor which isn't accounted for.

 

I would make the argument that K's don't have much correlation on runs scored.

 

http://www.thediamondangle.com/archive/mar02/kcor.jpg

 

The above study (courtesy thediamondangle.com) was done with stats from 1997-2001 in the American League (which factors out the pitcher). There doesn't seem to be much correlation between K's and runs.

[mikerollins]

Quote:

---

I think you're circumventing the statement. It's not about what team's going to win the world series, it's about what effect K's have on runs.

 

If we're going to change the argument to what team has the best chance to win the world series, then pitching is certainly an enormous factor which isn't accounted for.

 

I would make the argument that K's don't have much correlation on runs scored.

---

 

I'm not really trying to correlate K's to runs scored over a season. I'm trying to say that strikeouts do matter.

 

One example, in the first inning today we get a run with pretty much any other outcome other than Prince Fielder's strikeout.

 

My point about the teams with a chance to win a world series not striking out very often is very valid. The reason that St. Louis, New York, New York, Chicago White Sox, Angels, etc have legit chances to win the World Series is because they are much better situational teams.

 

Sure the Reds and Rockies might score a decent number of runs despite their strikeouts because they score 10 or 11 runs/game often enough to win some games. However, when games are close and situational hitting is important, strikeouts are very detrimental to getting runners home from 3rd with less than 2 outs, etc. There is really no way to "prove this with stats". It's one of those things where it just makes logical sense when you think about it.

[endaround]

No you don't. This is what's maddening. People pretending that just putting the ball in play will score runs. It doesn't. The Cubs had men on first and third in the bottom of third and put the ball in play afte Walker's single and no one scored. Lee put the ball in play in the top of the 5th and killed the Milwaukee rally with a GIDP.

[Team Canada]

I feel like this topic has come up before..

[Brian the Automator]

[ I'm trying to say that strikeouts do matter. ]

 

Sure, they matter. They equal about 1/34th of a run.

[mikerollins]

Quote:

---

They equal about 1/34th of a run.

---

 

I just said it's not something that some stupid stat can prove. It's just common sense. I'm not going to get into a huge debate over it because it is so obvious that it's not worth discussing.

[Brian the Automator]

[ I just said it's not something that some stupid stat can prove. It's just common sense. ]

 

How are "runs" a stupid stat? It's not like it's VORPWTMIFATTIO65 (value over replacement player when the moon is full and the temperature is over 65).

 

Common sense is opinion, while facts are aboslute. By all means, if you can find a negative correlation between K's and runs using a large sample size, my ears (well, eyes in this case) are wide open.