04/16/2006 Brewers (Sheets) @ Mets (Bannister) 12:10 PM, CST

[mothershipconnection]

Something tells me "The Jared Fernandez Experience" will be short-lived. Yes, the sample is still small, but we also have several guys in the minors who have earned a shot.

[nsimps]

I think it's time that the Adams family made another visit to Milwaukee.

[Katuluu]

Something tells me "The Jared Fernandez Experience" will be short-lived. Yes, the sample is still small, but we also have several guys in the minors who have earned a shot.

 

I'd rather see Adams at this point. At least he's relatively young and still has upside.

[bwi]

How about the crazy hypothetical situation of a popup??

 

You are creating hypotheticals where you already have determined that the BIP moved the runners up. There are just as many situations (popup, FC, short fly, etc etc) that *do not* move the runner.

 

In my defense, I recognize the double play problem, first of all, but a lot of these strike out have been w/ runners on 2nd and or 3rd with less than 2 outs.

 

Second, It seem that I am framing the argument to mean BIP= productive out, but what I am merely saying is that BIP in these situations increases the chance to score a run greatly as opposed to the K. Since w/ runners on 2nd and/or 3rd there is a MUCH smaller chance of hitting into a double play, simply putting the ball in play there increases the chances to score a great deal. Yeah, a pop up and tapper to the pitcher are EQUAL to a strikeout in effectiveness, but they are not worse, and just about anything else gets the guy home.

[markwitx]

Losing 2 of 3 at New York is nothing to be ashamed of. We did have are chances to win on friday and today. I can't think of to many teams that will win vs the mets in new york this season. The sky is not falling.

[JET15]

We really flamed out at the end. Daren said the one positive from the game is Ben Sheets. I say it's Jenkins definitely turning the corner.

[Southwest Brewer]

Quote:

---

Something tells me "The Jared Fernandez Experience" will be short-lived. Yes, the sample is still small, but we also have several guys in the minors who have earned a shot.

---

I sure hope we don't need a large sample to stop this experience.

[Sheets4theHOF]

Yuck. I was real excited to watch this game and felt like the brewers were gonna take this series.

 

Sheets looked pretty good. One big mistake to Nady, but besides that his stuff was good. Not the pin point control we're used to but that will come the more starts he gets.

 

Gotta give it up to the mets today. A bunch of talented hitters in that lineup (even with no Beltran today!) They took advantage of every mistake the brewers made today.

 

Which is the exact opposite of what the brewers did. Frustrating to watch! Bannister was awful today and the brewers didn't take advantage.The Ks with a man on third and one out was the worst. When you can score runs by simply making productive outs you have to take advantage.

 

Overall a tough start road trip so far but not completely unexpected. Cards are the cards and the mets have the best record in baseball. Good team are hard to beat on the road. Would have been nice to take one of these series though. If the brewers take the series against the astros I think you can still consider it a successful trip.

 

7-5 still only a game out of first. One series left on this tough trip. Time to dig deep.

[Ennder]

I don't think anyone is really going to argue that striking out with runners on 2nd and/or 3rd with less than 2 outs is a good thing. Its just not nearly as bad as most make it out to be. A line drive right to an IF is actually worse than the K as it still probably ends up as a double play. A pop up, a weak fly out, a grounder that doesn't score the runner etc are all just as bad assuming there is no error.

 

The second problem is that by reducing K's you are also reducing your SLG indirectly. If the hitters are worrying about putting the ball in play instead of driving the ball you are reducing the HR's, doubles etc that the team is going to hit with RISP. Its just not a completely black and white issue.

 

I'd love to see the team cut down on K's with RISP but I don't think the difference between us being a good or bad team is so cut and clear that you can blame it on K's in those situations.

[RyDogg66]

Well, you dont have to assume too much with a runner on third that a strikeout isn't going to get him in. I can tell you that your chances of getting a guy in are 0 when you whiff, and that they are not zero when you hit the ball.

 

Talk about making assumptions, for a BIP to not score the run you have to assume

 

1) that it is NOT a hit (what is the % of BIP that are hits? 30%?)

 

2) that it is fielded cleanly by the IF or OF

 

3) for a GB, that the IF is playing in for a flyball that it is a pop out

 

3a) In the case of a groundball, you must assume tha the fielder is going to try to cut the runner at home rather than take the out

 

4.) that the throw made from the OF or IF to home plate is a good one.

 

I think we whiffed 4 (maybe 5) times w/ runners on 3rd, less than 2 outs. If we get two of those runs in, we are winning 5-4 and they are facing Kolb/Wise/Lehr in the 8th instead of JDLR.

 

Finally, and I've been here for every strikeout discussion, if strikeouts are good for pitchers, how can they be neutral outs for batters? A strikeout is an out 100% of the time, but a BIP is a hit 30% of the time that just doesnt add up to me. Im aware of the double play problem - but I think we are talking runners on 2nd and/or 3rd only here, but even a BIP with no out and runners on 1st and 3rd produces a run w/ a double play.

 

I don't know, with runners on 1st and 2nd or a runner on 1st I can listen to the argument that strike outs are neutral, but when you get a guy on third with 0 or 1 out, I think the "strike outs dont matter" crowd is incorrect. They do matter - and it was shown that they matter today.

Quote:

---

The second problem is that by reducing K's you are also reducing your SLG indirectly. If the hitters are worrying about putting the ball in play instead of driving the ball you are reducing the HR's, doubles etc that the team is going to hit with RISP. Its just not a completely black and white issue.

---

 

I have a hard time believing this unless if by "indirectly" you mean "without being able to prove it".

 

Carlos Lee has never k'd more than 100 times in his career.

 

Albert Pujols' strikeouts the last 4 years vs. SLG%

69 : .561

65: .667

52: .657

65: .609

 

Junior Spivey had 83 K's in 259 ABs last year w/ a SLG% of .378

[endaround]

The problem is that the "if only" game can be played in any situation. "If only" Ben Sheets hit his target, Nady doesn't hit the home run. "If only" Carlos Lee had a decent day, the Brewers could have won. People focus on the K's because they believe that its easy to stop the Ks. After all such professional hitters like Bob Uecker and Bill Schroeder say it is, so it must be true.

[whiskybadger]

Some of you people are incredulous.

 

Am I gonna hear all year when we lose a series toa good NL team that we weren't supposed to win the series because they are a good NL team.

 

Newsflash..you dont make the playoffs or contend by beating the pirates of the league and losing vs any team with a winning record.

 

Alway sfind a way to justify a 2-4 roadtrip *****, and probably a 3-6 road trips..."well those are the NL's 3 best teams"

 

Astro mets and cards

 

Umm, 4 teams fromt he NL make the playoffs if we want or you think we have a shot we should be able to hang with those teams.

The fourth spot in the NL isnt some spot were the best of the worst teams gets in free, like int he Eastern conference of the NBA the bucks are sitting what... 7th with a below .500 record.

 

So sick of the garbage about how we should be losing to these teams because, supposedly not many other teams can beat them.

 

And almost winning and winning are completely different things.

 

You dont get in teh postseason by having the most almost wins.

 

Yet again ANOTHER STARTING PITCHER who we cant get ahold of.

 

 

The only thing that is good besides sheets i take from this game is

 

THE NOT HITTING WITH RISP IS ALMOST SOOO BAD, THAT ITS GOOD, BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY CANT BE THAT BAD CAN THEY?

 

If they got maybe 1 in in the 2nd i might be worried because it looks like they are gonna suck the whole year but to not get any in at all just makes it seem like a fluke.......i hope.

[Brian the Automator]

Whiskybadger, I would ask that you don't talk down to people. It's fine to disagree and to argue, but what you're doing right now comes across as ranting.

 

Also, please read the FAQ. Terms like "*****" aren't acceptable here, as they're abbreviations for cuss words.

 

Link:

forum.brewerfan.net/viewtopic.php?t=576.topic

[RyDogg66]

Quote:

---

The problem is that the "if only" game can be played in any situation. "If only" Ben Sheets hit his target, Nady doesn't hit the home run. "If only" Carlos Lee had a decent day, the Brewers could have won. People focus on the K's because they believe that its easy to stop the Ks. After all such professional hitters like Bob Uecker and Bill Schroeder say it is, so it must be true.

---

I think we are missing the original point. That strike outs do indeed matter. Sometimes, not as much as other times. For instance, when there is a runner on first and one out, a strikeout isn't that bad because a grounder could be an inning ending double play, but when runners are on 2nd and/or 3rd K's matter a lot.

 

Obviously there a million "if only" arguments that can be made any game. That's not what I am talking about here. What I am saying, and what a few others are saying is that when you elimate the routine groundball double play as an option, the strikeout is a major problem. The routine groundball double play requires a force out somewhere on the field, when there isn't that force out potential the cost of the strikeout is much, much higher than the cost of a groundball or flyball. And even if you say "what about a groundball to the pitcher or a flyball to short left field" that's fine, then a strikeout is equal to those, but by putting the ball in play you have a great chance that it can be a groundball out to the 2b or a sac fly to center or even - GASP! - a hit!!

 

Maybe people here dont put much stock into productive outs, I do, and I can't really think of a situation where a strike out produces anything but an out.

[metirish]

Quote:

---

Maybe people here dont put much stock into productive outs, I do, and I can't really think of a situation where a strike out produces anything but an out.

---

 

The Mets got quite a few productive outs in this series and in the game today, if I'm a Brewers fan I'm certainly happy with Sheets as it was his first start, still your team is missing a bat or two in my opinion, although it looks like Jenkins got his power swing back this weekend, I wish the Brewers all the best this season, good to see them on the rise..

[DuWayne Steurer]

Newsflash..you dont make the playoffs or contend by beating the pirates of the league and losing vs any team with a winning record.

 

I don't think it matters who you beat, so long as the total comes up to 90 wins. Then you should be in.

 

Winning teams win series because they're winning teams. That's pretty much a mathematical truth.

 

If they got maybe 1 in in the 2nd i might be worried because it looks like they are gonna suck the whole year but to not get any in at all just makes it seem like a fluke.......i hope.

 

 

1 for 16 today with RISP, certainly seems to me like it'd be a fluke. I can't disagree with you on this one. All we can do is hope that the law of averages evens out and the Brewers start getting some of their hits when men are on base.

[DuWayne Steurer]

AND, it bears mentioning (again) that those kings of K, the Boston Red Sox, led the American League in runs last year. And strikeouts. Go figure?

[endaround]

Actually no, the strikeout still isn't the worst out in those situations. The worst outs are: the ball hitting the man on third in fair territory, a ball hit sharply to the infield with the runner going on contact and gets thrown out at the plate, and of course the line out to the 3B leading to a double play. And there are countless outs in which are the same as striking out.

[RyDogg66]

end -

 

So now, to make it fit into your stike outs dont matter argument we have to assume that the runner at third base is taking ihs lead in fair territory AND he gets hit by a line drive? Come on. Or, we have to assume that Yost has called the go on contact play AND the ball is hit right at the third baseman? Really? And you really think that you'd STILL prefer the strikeout over the SLIM chance that our runner is standing in fair territory AND gets smoked by the linedrive? How often does that happen? How often are groundballs hit to the SS or 2b? Or flyballs to medium Right center? Sheesh....

 

Multiple Choice Question.

 

Runner on Third Base. The Score is 3-1 we are losing. There is one out. In this hypothetical, the batter up to bat will make an out. How would you prefer he make that out.

 

A) Strikeout

B) Ball Put in Play somewhere

C) It doesn't matter

 

And as far as the Red Sox go, when you have a lineup like they have had the past two years it is easier to strike out with a runner on third and nobody out and be picked up by someone like Damon, Ortiz, Manny, Varitek, Nixon...etc, etc...

 

In 2004 people complained a lot about hitting with RISP and everyone kept saying it would even out over the course of the year - and it didnt.

 

In 2005 people complained a lot about hitting with RISP and everyone kept saying it would even out over the course of the year - and it didn't.

 

Now, in 2006, we have played 12 games and it is the same thing. Nobody can even make contact with RISP - it looks to have gotten even worse than last year. Now, it may very well even out - heck, I EXPECT it too, but the last 340 games havent given me much confidence.

[homer]

End, what are the odds of those things happening on a BIP?

 

I agree that strikeouts are certainly not that big a deal, but in certain situations I can see where they are worse than a run of the mill out.

[davego]

Ah...the smell of flowers in the air, a light spring rain, BrewerFan nation all over Jenkins and...the age old strike out debate. Man I love the baseball season!http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[valpocrewsader]

Quote RyDogg:

---

Well, you dont have to assume too much with a runner on third that a strikeout isn't going to get him in. I can tell you that your chances of getting a guy in are 0 when you whiff, and that they are not zero when you hit the ball.

 

Talk about making assumptions, for a BIP to not score the run you have to assume

 

1) that it is NOT a hit (what is the % of BIP that are hits? 30%?)

 

2) that it is fielded cleanly by the IF or OF

 

3) for a GB, that the IF is playing in for a flyball that it is a pop out

 

3a) In the case of a groundball, you must assume tha the fielder is going to try to cut the runner at home rather than take the out

 

4.) that the throw made from the OF or IF to home plate is a good one.

 

I think we whiffed 4 (maybe 5) times w/ runners on 3rd, less than 2 outs. If we get two of those runs in, we are winning 5-4 and they are facing Kolb/Wise/Lehr in the 8th instead of JDLR.

 

Finally, and I've been here for every strikeout discussion, if strikeouts are good for pitchers, how can they be neutral outs for batters? A strikeout is an out 100% of the time, but a BIP is a hit 30% of the time that just doesnt add up to me. Im aware of the double play problem - but I think we are talking runners on 2nd and/or 3rd only here, but even a BIP with no out and runners on 1st and 3rd produces a run w/ a double play.

---

 

Awesome posts in this thread, RyDogg. I'm with you 100%.

 

And apart from points like yours, here's one additional. The way I look at it, strikeouts are simply a complete failure. In baseball, it is just the ultimate offensive breakdown. When the object of the game is to safely put the ball in play, you have to be happier with someone who does half the job -- puts the ball in play for an out -- than someone who can't even put the ball in play to begin with. Even if the outcome is worse (2 outs instead of 1), how can you not want to see contact made with the ball ending up in fair territory? How can you only care about the "outcome" rather than what our players are actually doing on the field? A double-play is a disappointment -- and possibly just a bad break if the ball is hit hard -- but a strikeout is a total failure from the batter's perspective.

 

I guess I just don't want to see players on the Brewers go up and whiff. Yes, there has to be some strikeouts, but this many? I want them to take the stick in their hand and use it to knock the ball in play. To look like they know what they're doing. As hitters for my favorite team, it's what I want to see. I really don't even care what the sitation is ... bases loaded, bases empty, 0 outs, 2 outs. I don't like witnessing Brewer players go up to the plate and come away from the at bat contributing nothing.

 

Obviously, if someone strikes out with a runner on first and less than two outs, I'm likely turn to someone and say, "At least it wasn't a DP". But I'm sortof fooling myself. I want to see the hitter go up there and HIT. Go up there and show the signs of talent and ability to smack the ball WHEN WE NEED IT.

 

The mountain of K's in crucial situations today was painful and pathetic to watch. Not because it's an isolated incident, but because we seem to keep seeing it over and over again.

[endaround]

You're the one who pretends that nothing worse than a strikeout can occur when you put the ball in play. Thats just not the case. The most often culprit is player going on contact. And that is so much worse than a strike out . My point is that I'd much ratehr see a ball hit hard and balls that players swing at or take for strike 3 are unlikely to be hard hit balls.

[RyDogg66]

end -

 

I still dont follow. How often are players going on contact? They certainly arent going on contact with the infield in. I dont think going on contact is that common. Perhaps going on contact if the ball is hit anywhere but directly at the 3b. It just doesnt happen very much. The player going on contact or whatever is just a mistake by that player or a bad call by the manager. If the ball is hit to anyone in the infield playing normal depth you should be able to score - except with the thirdbaseman. Maybe Im not following what you are saying.

 

It seems to me that you are saying that if you have to make an out with a runner on third and less than two outs that the manner in which you make out doesnt matter.

 

I am saying that with a runner on third and less than 2 outs that I'd rather put the ball in play than whiff, because the chances of an out driving the runner in are obviously greater than zero (which is what a k is) and I feel that the odds the runner on 3rd being out is very small. There are MANY MANY times in a game when a ball is hit to the middle infielders or medium to deep fly balls hit to the OF. Those score runs. strikeouts do not.

[Southwest Brewer]

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION:

 

It seems we have a bit of a disconnect between two sides on what is important and how to measure it (duh, huh?).

 

I can see the point of what is measured with the statistics and the outcomes of outs....a strikeout can cause less damage in some situations. However rooting for less damage is not what I'd like to do....I'd rather root for what gives us more potential to score a run and hitting the ball gives us a chance to score.

 

W/ less than 2 outs, I don't see a strikeout as good....in fact I never see a strikeout as good.

 

The reason being, the stats show the damage or outcomes or however they are described so that a K is sometimes OK.

 

The problem is "potential outcome"....a K has no potential to result in an RBI. Yes, hit ball may result in a DP, but it has so much more potential than a K to result in a runscored.

 

How many RBI's have resulted from a K?

 

What percent of RBI's result from a ball put in play?

 

I see it as more of the potential rather than the outcome. K's give zero potential to push a runner across the plate.